Is it possible to sway someone who denies clear evidence? At some point you have to decide that they are either blind or stupid. The scientific consensus goes back 20 years. I have read dozens of articles on this during that time. Why is it easy for folks like you to deny science when it’s inconvenient, and accept it when it isn’t? And how is that different from the pathetic hypocrite argument you made earlier about not living in a technological world? If you can’t accept the findings of the scientific community on this score, why accept it on any other? Why don’t you go live in a yurt? 
The trick is, of course, America is largely done industrializing. So, we ought step up and fix our problems. China can clean its house when the time comes, but our lack of work in the area is inexcusable. Back to the idea of testimony, I trust those whose expert testimony state that global warming is anthropogenic in nature; whereas I have serious doubts as to the credibility of those who argue otherwise.
Not having enough information on the area (I’m no climatologist), I think arguing that it is a myth of some sort needs a lot more backing. Especially since, for the climatologists, there is a lot more money in denial of anthropogenic global warming than there is in its affirmation.
First of all, they are not making any more land. Maybe in Hawaii, but not in Maine. Second, increased public access to private land (i.e. the timber lands in Maine) IS a legal issue for non-lawyers. That access was always there for the non-public, and “hard release” language is often granted in return for public access, which, in the East, generally means exemptions from certain envirionmental regulations when getting the cut out on the released lands; most of which are second, third or fourth generation cuts. And yes, you are right, it does not meet my definition when mutliple use ends up making it worse than it was when the timber companies kept the general public out. Then denzien of Manhatten may think Central Park is Eden, by there again is the myopia. So, increased public access to private lands, or land private/public land exchanges may have occured, but there has not been an increase in “public lands.” In other words, it’s a view shed, designed to make the general public feel like things are getting better because they look better. I’ll digress for a minute to explain what is both a metaphor and a reality: Landscape Architects are hired to find that which you can see from the public roads while driving along at 50 mph. That is left un-cut. But get out and walk twenty yards, laterally through the “forest” and you find a moon scape. That is generally a “western” phenominon, but your feeling good about shit in Maine is “local” perspective that seems to be summed up thus:
- Whatever happens is natural;
- I am happy with what is happening;
- If others want what I have, they must do what I did;
- Or to hell with them;
- At least until their suffering starts to impact me.
If that is the view, then fine. Greens will take that under advisement in their decision making process. I’m sure the Chinese will too. And if and when you come running for support under some non-existent social contract that is above nature and the animal kingdom, you will be an unheard believer or a welfare queen on bended knee, seeing the error of your ways.
When you say logic holds two values, true and false, you fail to understand the logically fallacy of the two valued orientation. In seeking what is true or false, your given premise need not be accepted as one or the other of two options set forth by you. Study up, I can’t do your research for you.
When you say: “What’s “inimical to interest” is also a matter of dispute. You seem to assume that what is in your own interest simply should be in the interest of others.” You are wrong. It is you who suggests that you are happy with global warming because it is in your interest, and those who don’t like it should suffer or change.
What I am suggesting is that you won’t see what is inimical to your interest until you suffer. In the meantime, you watch the canary die and think all is well. You think you are flying as you fall. So long as you haven’t hit the ground, who cares?
Here is where you make my point when you say: “But, for example, I do not care what happens three generations down the road - it can all go to hell. I will be dead then. That might not square with your view, but there is nothing unreasonable about it - it would be moronic, in my view, to make any sacrafices for people who aren’t born yet, and who may never be born.”
You simply don’t care. That is fine. As I said, your position will be taken under advisement when decisions are made about concentric circles of care by those who do. Unfortunately, when you come back begging, you will probably be taken in and be taken care of, because that is the difference between you and those with a social contract/conscience. There are always leaches and parasites on the backs of others, but unlike those in the natural kingdom, man willingly carries the burden and won’t try to scratch you off; if only because some folks do care about future generations and will try to set an example.
If we are not above the animals, and if we are the animals, then it’s okay to kill you when I percieve you as a threat to my circle. Pray tell, what of the social contract? You think animals have a social contract, where they agree not to kill eachother for self interest? If that were the case, there would be 6.5 billion wolves and deer.
But here, finally, is your blatent hypocricy, when you say: " I am not anti-green. I am for myself. And no one else. I have no problem assessing alternatives - I have a problem with with wild-eyed rhetoric that espouses the view of some as if it is merely a matter of common sense to accept their view uncritically."
Greens should accept your “I am for myself” view uncritically, yet you have a problem with Greens who refuse to do so? They are just doing what you are doing. They are saying fuck you, just as you say fuck you to everyone else. They are just saying “I am for myself. And no one else.” The difference is, you don’t know what is for yourself because you are myopic.
Here’s the deal, faust, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh tells you.
Follow the money. The vast, huge, overwhelming majority of subsidy and cash and votes and EVERYTHING is on the side of petroleum hydrocarbons. It makes you boogy man PALE in comparison. If your logic about money/power is correct (which it is), then you just irrivocably trashed your own argument.
It’s no different than the tabacco industry. They were not overcome by money and votes. They were overcome by science, logic and people who give a shit. The global warming issue is not there yet.
I’ll concede on point to the guys at VHEMT- political systems are very fleeting and unstable, and any gains we make in lowering population may be temporary. The only way to permanently reverse the damage done by humans is to be rid of humans altogether. Still, I don’t advocate that. But I do believe the ecological problems we face aren’t solvable in a world with ten billion or more people. Birthrates must dramatically decline, and the human population of Earth should be stabilized at a number under a billion or so souls. Technology allows us to wring more and more out of less and less, but it’s probably just postponing the inevitable.
I think we are addressing global warming as a species, but I’m mixed as to whether to be optimistic or not. If we turned off all the machines right now, the processes we’ve set in motion would still continue to advance for a couple decades. Short of hitting upon a technology that can actually reverse it, things will probably get worse before they get better. Worse, while we can identify the causes with a decent degree of certainty, we lack a complete enough understanding to solve them without running smack into the Law of Unintended Consequences.
[quote=“faust”]
Myself, I like it that it’s warmer out.
quote]
Global warming doesnt mean that
Global warming is going to happen we can but, delay it a bit. Might as well get ready for a cold long, long winter, if you survive the initial flooding , hurricanes, vocanoes, earthquakes, disease, etc… It is possible for humanity to survive we are after all sentient, not too bright sometimes but, mostly intelligent, Ok a piss-ant has more brains than us at times but still we can survive if we put down weapons, put down mass production and starve off the weak and the poor… Ok, OK that last was bad but, you know leaders will try that in desperate times even though its sick.
We probably won’t do anything until it’s more evidant that global warming exists.
It’s also hard to say when the next Ice age will come. Ice ages aren’t very predictible.
Yea like cooking an egg on a sidewalk in Minn. during summer is not evidence. LOL You can burn them now in AZ. As a kid we took the occasional egg out to test the theory in AZ., it sort of was true… Now it really is.
Written like a true backseat philosopher.
My suggestion is to explore human politics or business, both allow one to see the nature of human priorities on the individual vs whole.
You have no idea what technologies can prevent specific greenhosue gasses from being an issue, or what specific measures can be taken to reverse some of them already in place.
The key is, and always will be:
- Identify problems.
- Understand it as fully as necessary.
- Propose broad strategies to solve the problem.
- People run off and develop specific tactics in line with the strategy.
- The engine of capitalism helps foster any or all of the following:
- Technological developments or applications
- Economic initiatives
- Makers of greenhouse gasses
- Users of greenshouse gas producing end products.
- Makers of things the users of greenhouse gas producing end products use.
- Public opinon and awareness
- Laws and regulations.
That’s not even approaching a comprehensive list. This has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses, or polution, or global warming. In general it’s about identifying a problem, and the way to deal with it.
Saying “because we can’t”, is grounds for termination. Not because it can be done, but because there is no evidence that someone who claims that, has any idea what they are saying cannot be done.
-Mach
+1.
It’s also part of the false notion that just because X got us where we are, and we like where we are, that we must continue to do X if we want to stay here. Or others must do X to get here.
It’s also part of the false notion that we can do anything we want and the burden of proof that something is bad is on those who want to stop us from doing it. The burden should be on those who want to proceed away from the status quo by polluting. They should first prove no harm. If they can internalize their costs, that is one thing, but they never do. They spread the risk around on everyone else with promises of good things to come, and they get government to subsidize it. Then we all pay (asthma, global warming, etc.). That is hardly an arm’s length transaction in a free market, capitalist environment. 
Why don’t we do anything?
Because it is more profitable for politicians or those in authority to destroy it reaping in all economical rewards filled with lavished accumulations of wealth.
Indeed
No, we don’t do anything because we don’t want to pull our collective heads out of the nice warm comfortable sand, we might risk something and we might have to actually work and do hard things. Don’t blame the politicians and corporations. We the average outnumber them and we the average like our creature comforts so much that risking them is out of the question. We also love to give false promises and procrastinate, I will start recycling tomorrow. 
I tend to reject the onus being on a radically individualized populace. People will tend to gravitate towards the easier option, all things being equal. Heck, even when all things aren’t equal, people slide into sloth without pause. This is compounded by the consumerist culture that capitalism demands, where advertisers invent new products that we “need” and use fancy packaging to help lure us into that. Style over substance.
Which is why there needs to be pressure from the top down to elicit change. While I have some sympathies for the notion of mass line, after all it is ultimately the people that get things done and the conditions that people are living in that drives society, but given how people want to take the easy way out (personal responsibility is also something that consumerist culture detracts from) you aren’t left with many options but to force people into right action.
Now, the methods whereby one forces people into right action vary. I tend to think that those in authority need to rectify themselves and thereby the rest of society will become ordered. Unfortunately, Joker is quite right on his point that those in power are driven by petty financial and selfish interests which is ultimately what drives us downwards.
Which brings us back to radical individualism . . .
Speak for yourself
Faust, you seem to be one of the few logical people left on this board. Read my post entitled “Water!” in the philosophy forum and then come to the realization that you will even see the horrid results in your own back yard in your own life time. Most likely, severe results in the next 5 years depending on where you live. It’s real, unfortunate, and unstoppable. Prepare yourself.
Overpopulation is a bitch!!! and exponentially growing. . .
There is plenty of water where I live.
I have been away, and so only skimmed this thread since my last visit. No one here is taking a long view - I don’t think that anyone here has done more than take a very selective sample - we simply know more about the climate history of the earth than the Chicken Littles are stating.
Did the Ice Age happen because we weren’t burning enough carbon?
Charlie - you are addressing only a small part of my point, and are continuing the rhetoric. That we are not manufacturing more land is irrelevant. Mere use by humans does not despoil land. People are part of the natural world. To set aside land that no human visits is pointless.
There has been an increase in land that is accessible to the public. Again, look up the many land trusts in Maine. What else does “public land” mean? Land that you approve the use of?
I spens a lot of time in the woods of Maine. I understand visual barriers, but that does not describve the landscape of Maine generally. You are simply telling an untruth here. Again, you are being selective with the facts.
Your summary of my view is close enough, but quite incomplete. I am not very concerned with your personal desires for land use, however.
“The logical value of fallacy of the two-value orientation” is gibberish.
I am not very much concerned with the suffering of others - but neither are you. Some people cut trees down to survive - not merely to feel good about themselves.
I will not come back beggting, and I simply don’t want you or your ilk to make decisions for me. That’s the part you don’t get.
I have no interest in your accepting my view - I don’t even know you.
I have no problem with people saying “fuck you” to me. Happens all the time.
I agree that the envionment does move on inevitably and that there is nothing we can do to stop that, but just as you say people take too small a view I say people like you take to large a view. We must understand that though it takes millions of years for change to happen that this change is also happening right now and that drastic effects are beginning to change the world we live in. Not only this but when looking at charts of the earths climatic history we can see that since the industrial revolution that today things are changing alot faster than usuall. It is a change that will happen anyway, but the danger is not the change, but rather the speed of the change, nature can take thousands or even millions of years to adapt to climatic change, this is not fast enough to compensate for our impact. If nothing is done we will be the cause of a mass extinction for this reason. Life as a whole always survives, its hugely diverse and with all of the species to choose from even a mass extinction will not stop there from being life. But we can do something to prevent our level of impact, make the blow a little less. The key to conservation is not to stop the punches, but to roll with them
You make no sense, dude. First you accuse Chicken Little of not taking the macro view, and then you come back with some stuff about Maine??? You sound like the guy who says there is no global warming because it snowed yesterday and he had to shovel his walk. 
And, even while you are incorrect about Maine, we can assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and ask what the hell Maine has to do with the big picture, geographically (i.e. planet-wide) or chronologically (i.e. past ice ages/warm spells etc.).
Mere use by humans DOES despoil land. History is replete with examples. If you disagree with this, then you should be just as happy in a second year Brazilian Rain Forest cut as you are in Maine, so you should have no problem going there and leaving Maine alone, correct? Or do you like Maine for a reason? If so, what is it?
You reference the climate changes of the past, as if that is a relavent baseline for the topic today. There were not 6.5 billion people then, contributing to, or suffering from such changes.
To set aside land that humans cannot access is not pointless. Rather, it has the best point of all. You are being selective with the facts. But you come by it honestly. Just as you consider yourself the only relevent concern, by extrapolation, you consider man the measure of all things. If he can’t use it, it’s pointless. What an empty, pointless life you must lead. You don’t serve any purpose to me, ergo you are pointless. Thus, if Chicken Little is a human being and part of the natural world, then anything he does is natural, including stepping all over you when you shit on his planet.
So how can you claim we are part of the natural world on the one hand, and then take issue with the defense of it by Chicken Little? Are we supposed to make an exception for YOU?
You say I am not any more concerned about others than you are, but that is not true. I’m thinking at least seven generations down the road.
You say some people cut trees down to survive - not merely to feel good about themselves. True. So what is your point? That Chicken Little should stand idly by and let them do it? You don’t stand idly by and let Chicken Little interfere with your access to those same trees, so why should Chicken Little sit idly by and watch you trash them?
The difference between you and Chicken Little is this: At the end of the day, with Chicken Little, the trees are still there and can still be used. With you, the trees are gone. And, while a tree is a renewable resource, a forest is not. If you don’t know the difference, look it up. A forest is more than trees. But for one who is limited to view sheds of nature (remember, that is a metaphor for myopia too, and not just the literal), then you view is understandable.
You say that “I will not come back beggting, and I simply don’t want you or your ilk to make decisions for me. That’s the part you don’t get.” Oh, but I DO get it. I get that YOU and YOUR ilk are making decisions for me and my children and their children, and THAT’S okay, but heaven forbid anyone should make decisions for you. In your selfish greed, you want to do it with impunity. But you don’t want me and my ilk making decisions for you. Yeah, I get it. I got that long before I met you here. I’ve know your type for decades. It’s the reason the world is as it is and getting worse.
I do want to hold you up as an example to the world of exactly why Chicken Little should NOT care about YOU; and exactly why Chicken Little SHOULD make decisions for you and shove them down your throat whether you like it or not. And Chicken Little should not lose a wink of sleep over doing so. In fact, if I had my way, I would lock you up in cage and enslave to work because right now you are worthless to me. You are pointless to me. You are to me as a tree is to you. Really, what good are you to me? You are worthless and pointless to nature AND the human race because you serve absolutely NO purpose to anyone but yourself.
Do you see your logic? If something not only has to have value to “us” in order to preserve it, then anything has more value to “us” than you do. And this is especially true if you don’t care about “us” but only about yourself. In the end, a tree, any tree anywhere, even among trillions of trees, serves a greater purpose to the natural world, including humanity, than you do.
You just go on about Christopher Stone’s “ontological problem,” as if that is your excuse for being part of a problem, or as if there is no problem at all. That is self-defeating logic since you would kill yourself if it were true. The tree generates oxygen while you just waste it.