[Flatlander]

I declare this thread Godwinned!
2nd page though. Must try harder...

(Sorry)

Anyway, I'm with JohnG on this - there are more pressing problems than CO2, mostly to do with habitat loss. Without the habitat, the ability of ecosystems to adapt to climate change, whatever its origin, will be much reduced. AGW is a major distraction.

This post has been edited by Tim Prosser: 16 February 2012 - 11:16

[Peter H]

Tim Prosser, on 16 February 2012 - 11:14, said:

I declare this thread Godwinned!
2nd page though. Must try harder...

(Sorry)

Anyway, I'm with JohnG on this - there are more pressing problems than CO2, mostly to do with habitat loss. Without the habitat, the ability of ecosystems to adapt to climate change, whatever its origin, will be much reduced. AGW is a major distraction.

I agree with you and John about habitat loss (and with you about Godwin) but my education over the years makes me think AGW will (likely) be a very serious problem in the future - if climate changes by degrees celcius all the worlds habitats will be changed, markedly. So, I think AGW scepticism is the major distraction from that problem - and (back OT) I think what has beeen revealed about Heartland's activities is good evidence to back that thought up.

This post has been edited by Peter H: 16 February 2012 - 11:43

[andre]

Obviously preventing to really learn how the human instinct works, is hiding behind Godwins law.

Who doesnt want to learn from history has to do all over again.

[Peter H]

andre, on 16 February 2012 - 12:15, said:

Obviously preventing to really learn how the human instinct works, is hiding behind Godwins law.

Who doesnt want to learn from history has to do all over again.

Andre, I've learnt from history.

I've followed these debates for a decade and I am yet to see anyone with views deeply sceptical about AGW condemn the kind of vicious hatred and attacks scientists like the ones I've mentioned have faced. So, I ask you again, will you condemn those decade long attacks? And I say again, I condemn them all.

[JohnG]

Chris Lloyd, on 16 February 2012 - 12:24, said:

I wonder if you have read my thread about the real problem with our planet. It is nice to see someone share the view that more is going on here than Co2 emmissions.

I have also commented on the amount of mudslinging that goes on as well. It dilutes anyone's argument.

Edit: Jusy working my way down page 2 and saw your second post LOL. You have read it.

Just finished actually A really interesting thread.

[JohnG]

Chris Lloyd, on 16 February 2012 - 12:44, said:

And the funniest thing of all is that we all know what's happening. How long have there been films around that warn of where we are heading. But hey, so long as we all have a good life in the mean time, who cares about the future hey!!!

This is the tipping point that every species reaches. We are on the brink of extinction and we don't even realise it.

A good life doesn't go hand in hand with extinction. We can all decrease consumption and still have a good life. As with most other things it depends on education and social expectations/peer pressure.

I didn't see Chris' thread before polluting this one so I will try and post additional comments and thoughts in the other thread as we are going increasingly off toppic... sorry.

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 16 February 2012 - 12:24, said:

I wonder if you have read my thread about the real problem with our planet. It is nice to see someone share the view that more is going on here than Co2 emmissions.

I have also commented on the amount of mudslinging that goes on as well. It dilutes anyone's argument.

Actually Chris I argue you're wrong.

My view is that we started off back in the 90's with the science, then we saw mud slung at it for a decade and now we see people say they don't know what to think. I think the connection is obvious. People like Heartland and those they pay (like Anthony Watts) sling mud because it sticks.

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 16 February 2012 - 13:00, said:

Point in case and on that note I will stop there. No point driving the point home any more.

Chris, like you said to me in the other thread, if you wish to breeze into a thread the least you can do is answer my response

I think I'm making a valid point. I've been around watching this all unfold since the 80's. I think I understand what is going on. Now, if you disagree with what I say at least indicate where my view of why we're where we are is wrong. Remember, I reply to your questions

Further I think I can remember all the bad blood starting with with the late John Daly's criticism of Dr Mann - the time when unpleasant allegations were (afaik) first made. I don't remember (pre that) any bad blood. So, again, I think mud throwing by AGW sceptics has worked and again I think this is worth examining and I'd like to read your response.

I'll also note I've twice requested that people condemn the kind of attacks the scientists I mentioned have received. So far only I have.

TO be clear, I'd much rather talk aobut scientific papers, what scientists find than get involved in all this. But, i do think it's important to get to the root of things.

This post has been edited by Peter H: 16 February 2012 - 13:11

[Peter H]

Chris Lloyd, on 16 February 2012 - 13:18, said:

Peter, if you wish to carry on the debate about the anti science machine, that's fine. I have said my bit, which I agree with JohnG runs parallel with my thread. I accept that and don't need to break the tempo of this thread as well.

Is that OK?

As a dodge, yes

This thread is about anti science. To understand why so many people have been put off science you need to look at history. I think I know what has happened. I'd like to read alternative view, a critique of my view but I think a persistent campaign of mud slinging has worked. Indeed, it worked so well even those trying to point that out get criticised...

[4wd]

The alternative view is that the alarmist viewpoints were pushed too far and too hard.

Now we are not seeing little warming, let alone dangerous increase in severe weather events.
If it was the science rather than the activists promoting these extreme scenarios, then perhaps they were wrong to shout so loudly that they understand everything - and any one who thinks the danger over-hyped must be wrong and should be silenced.

It's the evangelical approach which has done the damage, this is what has been said all along.
Now the chickens begin to come home to roost, science has widely lost credibility because in this subject it has been taken over by activist agendas.

[Flatlander]

Peter H, on 16 February 2012 - 11:42, said:

I agree with you and John about habitat loss (and with you about Godwin) but my education over the years makes me think AGW will (likely) be a very serious problem in the future - if climate changes by degrees celcius all the worlds habitats will be changed, markedly. So, I think AGW scepticism is the major distraction from that problem - and (back OT) I think what has beeen revealed about Heartland's activities is good evidence to back that thought up.

Yes and no. Climate change is nothing new, as we all know. There is evidence that the last ice age ended very very quickly - a 5C increase over a few years, at least in N Europe. Vegetation and fauna migrated fairly quickly without a major extinction event, although some well-known species with nowhere to go did die out.

Our flora and fauna in the UK is limited because not everything managed to migrate before the land bridge to the continent disappeared - but most species had somewhere else to go in northern Europe. Nowadays it would be a different matter because even on the continent a lot of species are isolated in 'national parks' or the like and probably couldn't migrate easily.

You can argue that AGW, if you believe it will be significant, makes such a change more likely (albeit over longer timescales), but there is no reason to think it couldn't happen anyway. Adaptability should be the name of the game. Preventing climate change is a game that cannot be won, with or without climate wars.

Habitat wars are ongoing too, but are on a more limited scale. What is a 'natural habitat'? Is 'conservation' a good idea? Are 'national parks' or 'protected areas' a good idea? etc etc


Anyway, I agree with all those suggesting population is the real problem, and this applies to both habitat and climate. That risks heading back towards Godwin though.

This post has been edited by Tim Prosser: 16 February 2012 - 14:23

[ldavidcooke]

Hey 4wd,

That is the same reason I dd not join Greenpeace, the WWF, the Serria Club, or PETM, they were all fringe evangelical organizations, who rather then work within the system instead invoked civil disobedence, protests or took to active events to "get the news out".

As were the Hippies of my day they were effective on using the news and media; however, they were attempting to force their values on society. I have no problems with their platforms as long as they do not impose their values on me. Simply put, I like a nice steak or roast once in a while, domestic high protien food stuffs were what helped us to evolve in the first place, whether it were land or ocean fawna does not matter.

That different cultures desired different rules is fine eith me as long as they limit their influence to their own property or region, allow members to move between regions as desired, and foremost respect the basic cvil liberties or rights of any member of their community. IE: If the Japaneese want to hunt whales then they can hunt within their 200 miles of shoreline with impunity. By the same token, if Western cultures wish to eat red meat, as lng as it is raised and prepared eithin their borders that s their choice. To go one further, if a culture defines a marriage as polyamony, that is their choice, just as the Amish offer a opportunity for their youth to experience the real world, they have that right. (To some degree it is the free butterfly adage though...) The point is we each should have a right to our own values, the issue is will we ever allow those who are different have their values as well.

[John Mason]

Yeah LDC, lentils have never much appealed to me either! It's not about what resources one uses, it's about not overdoing it.

Cheers - John

[Peter H]

ldavidcooke, on 16 February 2012 - 14:40, said:

Hey 4wd,

That is the same reason I dd not join Greenpeace, the WWF, the Serria Club, or PETM, they were all fringe evangelical organizations, who rather then work within the system instead invoked civil disobedence, protests or took to active events to "get the news out".

As were the Hippies of my day they were effective on using the news and media; however, they were attempting to force their values on society. I have no problems with their platforms as long as they do not impose their values on me.

In what way can Greenpeace impose things on you, us? I suppose we could say we both live in democracies in which, in a sense, the majority impose their view on the losers of elections, but what is wrong with people setting up groups to promote free trade, or libertarian thinking, or even (dare I say it? ) green thinking? I don't accept Greenpeace impose things on us (I'd like an example) anymore that I think the Heartland do. Indeed I see them as much less of a threat than I do Heartland.

Quote

Simply put, I like a nice steak or roast once in a while, domestic high protien food stuffs were what helped us to evolve in the first place, whether it were land or ocean fawna does not matter.

That different cultures desired different rules is fine eith me as long as they limit their influence to their own property or region, allow members to move between regions as desired, and foremost respect the basic cvil liberties or rights of any member of their community. IE: If the Japaneese want to hunt whales then they can hunt within their 200 miles of shoreline with impunity. By the same token, if Western cultures wish to eat red meat, as lng as it is raised and prepared eithin their borders that s their choice. To go one further, if a culture defines a marriage as polyamony, that is their choice, just as the Amish offer a opportunity for their youth to experience the real world, they have that right. (To some degree it is the free butterfly adage though...) The point is we each should have a right to our own values, the issue is will we ever allow those who are different have their values as well.

I'm all for rights - I mostly agree with the ones you list. Should I have the right to my value of being able to breath an atmosphere we don't treat as a dustbin for our combustion waste?

This post has been edited by Peter H: 16 February 2012 - 15:25

[Peter H]

Tim Prosser, on 16 February 2012 - 14:22, said:

Yes and no. Climate change is nothing new, as we all know. There is evidence that the last ice age ended very very quickly - a 5C increase over a few years, at least in N Europe. Vegetation and fauna migrated fairly quickly without a major extinction event, although some well-known species with nowhere to go did die out.

Our flora and fauna in the UK is limited because not everything managed to migrate before the land bridge to the continent disappeared - but most species had somewhere else to go in northern Europe. Nowadays it would be a different matter because even on the continent a lot of species are isolated in 'national parks' or the like and probably couldn't migrate easily.

You can argue that AGW, if you believe it will be significant, makes such a change more likely (albeit over longer timescales), but there is no reason to think it couldn't happen anyway. Adaptability should be the name of the game. Preventing climate change is a game that cannot be won, with or without climate wars.

I agree, except I do think we can prevent the bit we cause.

Quote

Habitat wars are ongoing too, but are on a more limited scale. What is a 'natural habitat'? Is 'conservation' a good idea? Are 'national parks' or 'protected areas' a good idea? etc etc

Imo, undoubtedly. Without them the world would be a lesser, blander place.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Peter,

Anytime, an organization tries to activly change anothers actions they are trying to impose their values on the other. If the international body concurs with the imposed rules on international territories/seas then we have to accept that rule. By the same token, in the case of national boundries, if the people living there are free to choose to remain or leave, then the majority of that country defines the values for that community. It is when freedom of choice is removed that it s incombant on the international community to act. If an organization wishes to bring out evidence of miss-doings that is fine; but in no way can they take actions against or protest such that their values are imposed on to others.