Environmental Elitism

“Wouldn't you want a chart that gave the average of all of hurricanes, not just those that struck the US?”

“For that matter, since the sun goes through cycles, wouldn't you want data on global temperatures over the last several thousand years?

Speaking of that, does Mars have intelligent being produced global warming too? Maybe the Martians are using too many aerosols and fossil fuels??

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/climate_change_underway_on_mars_8957”

“yes mutt, I'm the one.... 9 in four years, 18 in eights, 22 or 23 in ten. assuming they don't become more frequent, as they have in 2005.
Look mutt, what you don't get, in any way shape or form, is that it's ot just hurricanes. There are other events going on all around the world. Sure there are some ups and downs, but there is a pattern emerging, and persoanlly, I'd rather be save than sorry. Maybe if you travelled a little more, saw a little more of the planet that you seem to know so much about, then your mind would broaden a little.”

“The reason I asked is because I know there were a few storms this year that never hit land. I'm sure there was a few every year that should be included in with the data. Only including the storms that struck the US doesn't prove or disprove anything because the data isn't complete.”

“That's true lumberzac, it's just a statistical sample.”

“Look mutt, what you don't get, in any way shape or form, is that it's ot just hurricanes.

Well gee, *you* brought it up and then tried to justify it on one datapoint. And now you're backpeddaling. Tee hee.”

“Only including the storms that struck the US doesn't prove or disprove anything because the data isn't complete.

Yeah, but it's still useful to give Y2 a (self-inflicted) black eye. ;-)”

“Perhaps he gets (some) people to think a little, and not just accept everything they are told, and that is a good thing.”

Very true Manuka”

“mutt, you really think your argument holds up huh? wow.

You can't even see that just becase there's no steady upward trend, that the years 2004-2005 look set to make the next interval one of the busiest on record. Also at issue is the number of storms developing into significant hurricanes?
last edited: 9/23/05 4:52:55 PM”

“Hey thanks Humanpackmule, I had forgotten Roxanne.
Y2. Dont let em fool ya. Religion or not. Global warming has a solid science base and I dont have time to discuss it here and now. But, disrupted weather patterns are to be expected as the atmosphere warms the oceans.”

“How is this decade more "disrupted" than other decades?”

“I think the point is there's no conclusive here, but I think these storms will have more people questioning what's causing them, and more interest is a good thing”

“so long as it's not a red herring and we don't create unnecessary federal laws because of it”

“Ideally federal lawa won't be necessary - but that's something of a pipe dream as the chief polluters have to put profits first.”

“Sounds like you already have your mind made up that laws need to be made instead of "questioning what's causing them". You already know I suppose?

Nice thread title by the way mutt.”

“No, I think the idea of Bush policies was for, for example, energy companies to have restrctions lifted, but instead to undertake voluntary emission reductions. Trouble is they've not responded. I think in an ideal world responsible corporations would monitor themselves. In the real world they push the letter of the law to the limit and beyond.”

““How is this decade more "disrupted" than other decades?”

I do not know how many decades you have witnessed. But I know many credible and active people in their 90s who can attest to personal experience that the weather is changing. When I am in a science class, I expect folks to keep up with activities of the earth... like typhoons, tidal waves, hurricanes, to broaden their exposure to the rest of the weather world.
We live on an active planet. We interact with it. Watch the jetstream this winter and decide for yourself.”

“It won't be global warming or nuclear war

that scales the world back to a Ecotopia

but more likely some plague brought on by unhealthful food production processes.

Ecotopia is easy with a world of less than 100 million people.
last edited: 9/23/05 9:05:32 PM”

“hiking - The statistics we're looking at here show that the evidence doesn't support your contention. We do live on an active planet. And all indications are that the weather changes are natural.”

“"But I know many credible and active people in their 90s who can attest to personal experience that the weather is changing"

You're kidding, right? you're not suggesting this is some sort of proof of Global warming, are you?”

“No one here seems to be talking about "proof", it is more a matter of perception and interpretation.

Why not believe people instead of statistics OR in addition to statistics?

I like the fact that the topic of global warming has "sparked" so much comment.

Getting people to think is good.”

“A huge majority of the world's scientists and climatologists believe that humans are having an impact on the climate, typically speeding the changes. Mutt gives us a fiction writer who puts up straw man arguments comparing scientific research to some sort of faux religion.”

“Stop pushing your environmental religion on me!”

“Pedxing

Yes, the US does indirectly try to prevent Africa from using DDT by withholding funding, World Bank loans and the like if they do use it. We punish them for trying to prevent children from dieing, because we are all wrapped up in our emotional connection to birds of prey.

I love (emotion) knowing that eagles are out there successfully sittin on their eggs as much as the next guy, and objectively ( no emotion) understand their role in ecosystems.

However, I also have 3 children and cannot imagine losing them to something as preventable as malaria. The number I used previously, 500,000 is low. I don't have the article here at home. If that many American children were dieing every year from malaria we would be outraged. Here in Maryland and all up and down the east coast we used to have people dieing from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases. I beleive we used DDT and draining of swamps to eradicate the Anopheles (sp?). We still spray regularly here in MD in coastal areas, but not DDT.

Yes, Crichton is a science fiction writer. This doen't preclude him from debating environmentalism vs good environmental science. Susan Sarandon is just a good looking redheaded actress to some but I'll listen to what she says about the war.

Challenging your thinking is good.
Whether it's DDT, the horrible bat and bird chopping windmills, whatever.”

“A huge majority of the world's scientists and climatologists believe that humans are having an impact on the climate

Y2, let's examine your track-record so far: First, you made a howler of a blunder using a single datapoint as Ultimate Proof of global warming, and then you put on quite an entertaining show of backpedaling. Now you're reduced to bumbling forth two sophomoric fallacies: attacking the character of the messenger, and appealing to popularity.

You sure enjoy leaning into the punch, don't you? Heh. You should consider stopping before you piss off all the global warming religionists. Or don't, because I've been quite amused by your antics. :-)”

“believe that humans are having an impact on the climate

You bet they are, the desertification of Africa by domestic goats who eat vegetation down to the point it cannot recover.

By the UNDP providing health and medicine to reduce infant mortality - coupled with the US simultaneously blocking any family planning assistance - resulting in population explosions in areas that do not have the knowledge and infrastructure to support those populations.

Humans are becoming like locusts. We need a global ZPG, look at family sizes comparing the educated to the non educated.”

“Mutt mutt mutt, I didn't use a single data point, I pointed out the error in the data you provided. Explaining that it could be viewed another way.

The funny thing is that you seem to think your points are valid. You must take it so much you barely feel the friction. Like throwing a sausage down an alley. ;op

And it's more your credibility that's in question than your character. ;op”

“I think that there is a bit of asymmetric political warfare going on with this issue.

Most of the solutions put forth to combat global warming are good solutions regardless of their impact on global temperature.

Increased public transportation keeps sprawl down, decreases energy consumption and builds more interactive populations. Increased CAFE standards and factory pollution requirements help make air cleaner and reduce disease. More hydro, solar and wind power help to diversify the nation's energy usage.

All of these things are good, whether the temperature is going up or not AND whether humans have anything to do with it or not.

Of course, these solutions do require money from business and government. So, short-term, bottom-line people oppose them.

And the best way to fight a war is on a battlefield in which you have an advantage.

So, to defeat reasonable environmental regulation, it is much easier to throw out the tie-dyed crunchies preaching global doom and oppose THEM rather than make a logical argument against reasonable scientists and moderate lovers of clean air and water.

It is asymmetric political warfare.

BTW, that is what also is happening with the hurricane. Was Bush responsible for the hurricanes? No. But are the hurricanes a way for Democrats to slam against an environmentally-myopic President from a position of strength? Yes Sirree.

If you live by the sword...”

“Pollution in any form is bad and should be minimised.

I wouldnt worry much about global warming, there are far more urgent matters in our near future. Do a little research into fresh water supplies and imagine what will happen when a country of a billion people run out of water...”

“Please pause and read the Union of Concerned Scientists on the subject of Global warming.
This is NOT an ad or spam.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/”

“Thanks for the link, hiking. They seem like good people with a lot of facts behind them.

I worry a little, bit, though.

And I'll throw out a gut feeling I used to have.

My dad loves watching nature shows on TV. So, I've spent years watching them with him during visits. And for years and years, they would show a wonderful place. Then, the last ten minutes were almost always the sermon about how bad humans are/were and how we are/were in the process of destroying it all.

And, of course, some of it was/is true. But I always felt like I was being preached to. And I always felt that reasonable and intelligent people could sit down and find solutions without throwing out the "world is going to end" bomb.

And I'm a guy who votes Democrat a lot. I could definitely see someone more conservative than myself seeing "Union of Concerned Scientists" and just wanting to oppose the whole thing.

I don't think that we have to get rid of our cars. And I don't think we have to suddenly stop using oil.

I just think that small, incremental change over a long period will solve the problem.”

“I see what you mean reformed lurker, I agree that small changes are needed but I would add on a LARGE scale.

Those nifty nature shows were all the rage and very popular... but as you said... too preachy. Like.. let me show you what you will miss if you are bad.

Well, they had some points and they had some flaws.

We alone are the ones who sift through the morass and decide what is worth keeping and acting upon.

I liked those shows for their closeups and scenery, sometimes viewed them without sound.

I have a preference for alternative energy
and have seen solar heat and solar power do wonders. But. . .

I wonder if time will allow us the luxury of incremental changes.”

“reformed lurker: They seem like good people with a lot of facts behind them.

Where? I searched the site for facts and found opinion. Where is the scientific evidence on their site? TIA”

“The world must stop using oil

because shortly there will be no oil to use

something else might get us first

there will be no replacement for oil

other than a much reduced human population (which will/can not be achieved in a tidy fashion)

who learn (are forced by circumstances) to exist in Ecotopia.”

“Environmentalism is survivalism, not elitism

but those who lobby for those who profit from environmental degradation (whether it result in the loss of most life forms on Earth or not as long as it pays now and in the shortterm) would cast environmentalists as kooks.
last edited: 9/24/05 7:36:55 PM”

“I actually don't believe that there will be no oil to use.

The Canadians are sitting on reserves almost as large as Saudi Arabia that are mixed with sand. It costs $20 per barrel to create useable synthetic crude.

Cars can run on natural gas. If the price is right, cars can run on derivatives of coal. And, of course, vegetable oils can and do run cars.

I will bet that people will stop using oil on a cost basis before we ever run out.

Of course, I think that we should reduce our dependence on oil because it is a finite resource, it has national security issues and there are many, many alternatives that could diversify our energy usage. And, of course, there are many ways to reduce useage.

But national security, cost and pollution are reasons enough to push for alternative energy. We just don't NEED to use the fear of cataclysm to make the point. And I think that it decreases support for reasonable solutions.”

“The solution, you can't drink and drive, so,
stop driving so much and drink the methanol.”

“>> "Mutt gives us a fiction writer who puts up straw man arguments comparing scientific research to some sort of faux religion."

Aren't you being missed on backpacker.com, Straw Man? ;)”

“>> "Please pause and read the Union of Concerned Scientists on the subject of Global warming. This is NOT an ad or spam"

From "http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html":

>> "Brenda Ekwurzel, climate scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientist National Climate Education Program, told CNN that while global warming might not be causing hurricanes, it already is making them more intense.

"We would never point to a single weather event and blame global warming," she said."

Sooo, is it or isn't it? Seems one of their own can't even say so without contradicting herself.”

“... global warming might not be causing hurricanes, it already is making them more intense. "We would never point to a single weather event and blame global warming," she said."

Sooo, is it or isn't it? Seems one of their own can't even say so without contradicting herself.”

Ah Wandering, to distinguish between causality and intensity is not a contradiction it is clarification.”

“You state that synthetic crude oil can be manufactured for $20/barrel - What are the raw materials and in what volume?

Ethanol? The soils and water of the world are stressed as it is to produce the food and fiber currently consumed, therefore there is little additional capacity to produce the raw materials of ethanol.

While there is a considerable amount of petroleum, oil sands and oil shale left to be mined, with the rapidly increasing worldwide demand, all such sources would be essentially depleted within 50 years and at an environmental cost that is staggering.

The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, seems to still hold sway over the world's people with the exhaustion of the most available resources within the coming decades sure to revert human society to something like the 11th century if not to something like pre-civilization of 10,000 years ago.

There really are no answers save the hope of this being a part of an overall 'Divine Plan'.”

“I don't think you'll see a significant change in America's approach to energy until gallon of gas crosses $4-$5 per gallon. Then you will see all sorts of things become possible that prior to this point were disregarded. Necessity has always been the mother of invention... necessity and greed.”

“Not to diverge too much, but there was an interesting talk this afternoon on c-span by a geology prof emeritus from Princeton re: oil supply issues... check it out.”

“What! I can no longer commute 145 miles a day and on weekends drive 350 miles to climb Mt. Toofaraway just because the vandals stole the handle? You better look out kids.”

“yet another tangent alert... check your local listings.

Program the machine; order the DVD... Do whatcha gotta do!
last edited: 9/25/05 7:47:11 PM”

“This article is full of gross generalizations, historical inaccuracies and sensationalism. I'm surprised that anyone claiming to have "studied anthropology" could make these claims.

He seems to confuse "living in harmony with the environment" with sustainability, something that most certainly was achieved with various native groups.

Sustainability does not imply there was no war. Death is part of all ecosystems, and living sustainably doesn't mean that man laid down with the buffalo or the grizz in a state of peaceful bliss.

One thing we do know for a fact is this. You cannot expand infinitely in a world of finite resources. Man, like other animals, requires healthy ecosystems, and healthy ecosystems are balanced ecosystems, not ones where major predators have been erased or where watersheds are grossly polluted. Not to mention foul air that affects plants and respiratory systems.

Reports? I don't need reports and science to show what's happening in the world. All I need are good eyes and ears and functioning brain.

I can see with my own eyes what's happening in the Smokies due to an unhealthy ecosystem. I can see more and more land taken each year by sprawl and say, without any hesitation, it can't continue infinitely. No one but a fool would think otherwise.

The greatest challenge facing us in 2005 is not environmentalism, it's the advance of capital to all parts of the globe and Americans forcing industrial capitalism as the raison d’être on all peoples.

If you like traffic jams, houses stacked on top of one another, noise and all the other effects of the growth economy, well, enjoy it. But if you think there may be a better way, some sensible blending of modern technology and agrarianism within a sustainable, bioregional context, you're one of smart ones.

Either way, help is on the way soon. Peak oil changes the whole scenario, because the current system is propped up by cheap, highly available energy, something we know will not last.

I'd suggest Americans avoid the rush, get on a lifestyle diet and stop gorging themselves before it's too late.”

“Well said K.P.

as negative and fatalistic as I might sometimes sound

I strive to inform myself and occasionally offer for others my view of the dilemna we face.


2 points:

Very large families are no longer 'a blessing'.

The killing of animals for the consumption of their carcasses is no longer essential and in fact is extremely wasteful, accounting for a signifigant percentage of the energy and water consumed in the world.

What might be possible for future society has never been seen. I and I think few want to go back to the 'good old days' for they were not very good except for a few and then only for short times.

Answers will not come from new medicines that we need but from the realization of the medicines we can do without, realy, how did they survive before the development of DDT.

The winner of a 'ratrace' is still just a rat.

Individual decisions and actions will largely forge the future, it can't come from institutions.

People have never managed an honest and equitable society but now must find the way or collapse.

What is the point, anyhow?
last edited: 9/25/05 8:39:25 PM”

“I wish I could hear what I like, but here I like what I've heard.”

“The killing of animals for the consumption of their carcasses is no longer essential and in fact is extremely wasteful, accounting for a signifigant percentage of the energy and water consumed in the world.

I agree with this statement. I've always agreed with Aldo Leopold's views on hunting, as described in his now famous work, A Sand County Almanac. The mechanization and industrialization of hunting seems to have taken something away from it, and we certainly don't see the reverence for living things we witnessed with native peoples.

The Sioux and the Cheyenne gave thanks for the hunted and only took what they needed to survive. Same for the Cherokee and the Chickasaw. Americans, on the other hand, seem to love wholesale slaughter.

What might be possible for future society has never been seen. I and I think few want to go back to the 'good old days' for they were not very good except for a few and then only for short times.

I used to think I was born 150 years too late, but I certainly enjoy many modern conveniences and wouldn't want to lose them. I enjoy the benefits of the Internet, and I love my bike! But what I would like to see are more sustainable communities constructed more like villages, with limited car traffic, community gardens and locally owned shops that are within walking or biking distance from the home. I wish we could find a way for a larger percentage of people to work near their homes.

Then again, I'd be happy living in a tipi.

"I am going to venture that the man who sat on the ground in his tipi meditating on life and its meaning, accepting the kinship of all creatures, and acknowledging unity with the universe of things, was infusing into his being the true essence of civilization."
-Chief Luther Standing Bear
last edited: 9/26/05 7:40:51 AM”

“I was surprised at the hidden costs of big meat. The gas to get to the end consumer from where it's raised alone is something to consider. Buying local meat is cheaper and probably heathier.”