Ecology - A trend

On 2009-10-23 19:17, Ascension wrote:
I'm just asking you to take a side on this debate, you seem to be in limbo. Do you agree with one side or the other? It seems like you agree that man's emissions are hurting the planet...

On 2009-10-23 17:46, Ascension wrote:
Yes, I am one of those people. I hate the human race and I love the planet. If the Earth really is DOOMED, why are you sitting around here arguing (using a computer, which uses electricity, which comes from a power plant, which emits greenhouse gases)? I find most of the man-made Earth killing arguments to be filled with hypocrisy- and what I put there is just a small example.

Why, if you guys are SO convinced that we are killing the planet and dooming future generations, are you sitting around and not doing anything about it? Even I am working my way to start engineering work in the renewable energies field because I see its importance (not related to global warming, but the need for renewables since oil and coal are finite resources. You believing in this and not doing anything about it can be correlated to watching someone get robbed and not trying to chase down the culprit.

On 2009-10-23 19:56, Ascension wrote:
The point I was trying to get across was just to get you to realize what your point of view would imply. If you felt that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are hurting the planet- this means that they are also hurting the things you want to protect- the forests and animals (I want to help save them too!). If that were the case, anything other than living off the grid 100% is contributing to killing these things that we are trying to save. This is where my talk about hypocrisy came from- using a computer indirectly pollutes the earth/kills things, etc.

On 2009-10-23 20:13, Basilisk wrote:

Quote:

On 2009-10-23 19:56, Ascension wrote: The point I was trying to get across was just to get you to realize what your point of view would imply. If you felt that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are hurting the planet- this means that they are also hurting the things you want to protect- the forests and animals (I want to help save them too!). If that were the case, anything other than living off the grid 100% is contributing to killing these things that we are trying to save. This is where my talk about hypocrisy came from- using a computer indirectly pollutes the earth/kills things, etc.

Sure, and like I mentioned way earlier, perhaps the most ecologically friendly thing anyone can do is kill themselves.

Here's the problem with this viewpoint: even if you or I or anyone else decides to live off the grid and reduce as much as possible it's not really going to make a huge difference to the way society operates. It isn't just the collective action of individuals but changing entire industries and economies. You can't do that living as a barefoot hippie in a cabin in the woods somewhere.

So I'm going to do my thing, generally reduce my consumption, but work within the system to achieve my aims. I don't get stressed out that my apartment block doesn't have a compost. I'm not on a high horse about things, looking down my nose at people who don't separate cans from paper in their recycling bin. It is important to take some personal responsibility for environmental matters, sure, but even if the majority of us adopt more sustainable practices in our day-to-day affairs the extraction industry (i.e. mining) is still going to belch out tons of crap into the atmosphere and pollute countless lakes and rivers.

There's a balance to be had here. We can hold to the idea that human activity is damaging the global ecosystem, recognize that we are a part of that human activity, and still continue to function in society knowing this. For me, it just encourages greater responsibility: I want to do good with my time here. And that can only be assessed when my work here is done.

It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

The ambiguity lies solely with the question of whether observed changes in global climate (not regional) can be attributed to the increase in CO2 (and other GHG) concentration. And yes, there is some ambiguity here. Observed global temperature changes remain within a reasonable margin of error calculated on the scale of centuries.

On 2009-10-23 20:21, Ascension wrote:

I would agree with you here Alex, if these lines of thinking weren't already present and not causing any sort of REAL change.

Maybe you should look down your nose at those people. Many people take things more to heart when someone is overly passionate about it (go up and slap someone's hand next time they don't sort out their recyclables- next time they'll remember this interaction and maybe think twice).

I hope you see through my statements, that I, like you, am trying to affect a positive change.

On 2009-10-23 20:26, Basilisk wrote:
No, it's not valid. That's the nature of straw man arguments--you've typified me in a way that is dishonest, assigning me opinions that I do not actually hold.

Can I quote myself?

Quote:

The ambiguity lies solely with the question of whether observed changes in global climate (not regional) can be attributed to the increase in CO2 (and other GHG) concentration. And yes, there is some ambiguity here. Observed global temperature changes remain within a reasonable margin of error calculated on the scale of centuries.

How do you go from this to the idea that I think we are killing the planet and dooming future generations?

On 2009-10-23 20:33, Xolvexs wrote:
Environmentalist are definitely Fascists..

On 2009-10-23 20:39, Ascension wrote:

Ok, fair enough. I attribute me missing this to having been staring at a computer screen for the past 6 hours straight . I was basing my statements on the assumption that you thought man-made emissions WERE causing a problem. I'm glad (and not surprised) that you see the ambiguity. There's a lot of information on this subject that is open to interpretation, and unfortunately a lot of people without a broad knowledge of the subject interpret it one way or another and don't see the other side.

On 2009-10-23 20:50, Basilisk wrote:

Quote:

On 2009-10-23 20:39, Ascension wrote: Ok, fair enough. I attribute me missing this to having been staring at a computer screen for the past 6 hours straight . I was basing my statements on the assumption that you thought man-made emissions WERE causing a problem. I'm glad (and not surprised) that you see the ambiguity. There's a lot of information on this subject that is open to interpretation, and unfortunately a lot of people without a broad knowledge of the subject interpret it one way or another and don't see the other side.

The appropriate scientific attitude is one of scepticism. That's where I'm at. "Show me the evidence!"

We have a lot of evidence for climate change, but global warming itself is a bit trickier. There is plenty of evidence for environmental devastation, the "sixth mass extinction event", deforestation, eutrophication, air pollution, invasive species, etc. There is plenty of evidence for human impact on the planet, in other words. But AGW? Yes, it's still open. The evidence we have with regards to atmospheric composition is completely solid. Integrating that data into the big picture is where things have been getting ambiguous. The jury is still out... but that's not an excuse for inaction.

On 2009-10-23 19:56, Ascension wrote:
Yeah, I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion with you as well. I think it's coming to an end though.

The point I was trying to get across was just to get you to realize what your point of view would imply. If you felt that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are hurting the planet- this means that they are also hurting the things you want to protect- the forests and animals (I want to help save them too!). If that were the case, anything other than living off the grid 100% is contributing to killing these things that we are trying to save. This is where my talk about hypocrisy came from- using a computer indirectly pollutes the earth/kills things, etc.