DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3762--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest17
Date: September 14, 2015, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
agelbert:
--- Quote ---
>
> This addresses your rather condescending view that I don't
have the full picture.... And Alan, I want you to re-read the
post you just made. We have barely started the debate and
already you are maneuvering to assign a degree of ignorance and
overreaction to negative news to me
>
--- End Quote ---
OK, I re-read my post, and I think I see what you mean. I used
the word "crazy", and I doubted the "sanity" of those who are so
uber-sure of themselves. That's an accusation, a strong one, I
agree. Maybe I over-stated it. But not by much. There is a real
element of hubris in this, I believe, and it does border on
craziness. There is something wrong with people who are SOOOOO
all-fired SURE of themselves about the ultimate outcome of all
this 30, 50, 75 years hence. NO ONE can make predictions of very
specific outcomes, so far out, with certainty. It is extremely
difficult to make predictions of outcomes THIS YEAR, let alone a
half-century from now. This is not like predicting the outcome
of some guy having just jumped off a 50-story building. Climate,
as I said, is very complex with numerous wildcards. And human
responses to climate change even more complex with many more
wildcards. The best we can do is make some very general
statements about the trajectory and risks. And I believe we
should act aggressively to mitigate those risks -- don't get me
wrong on that point. What I object to is this uber-sureness and
overconfidence, including wild, I mean WILD predictions like
human extinction. That's beyond the pale. Sorry if you think
that is "condescending" or "patronizing", but I cannot represent
my view fairly in any other way. I call them as I see them. If
I see some guy out on the street yelling "prepare to meet thy
maker -- TODAY!!!", then I conclude that the guy has a screw
loose. Is that "condescending", or simply sensible and sane?
By the way, if you think that I am crazy, just say so. I will
not be offended. But I will want to know why you say that.
#Post#: 3763--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest17
Date: September 14, 2015, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ashvin and agelbert:
regarding environment and social justice, you might enjoy my
quora posts of this morning:
HTML http://www.quora.com/Will-technological-advances-enable-us-to-get-past-our-environmental-limitations-or-do-we-need-to-fundamentally-change-the-way-we-do-things/answer/Alan-Lewis-1
HTML http://www.quora.com/Is-all-the-wealth-of-the-wealthy-enough-to-bring-all-the-poor-out-of-poverty/answer/Alan-Lewis-1
#Post#: 3764--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 14, 2015, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ashvin link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=5557.msg85178#msg85178
date=1442091032]
> Do you see, Ashvin, that the logic you use to assert that
Alan's "point" about "exaggerating extreme outcomes" (that's the
proper phrase, old chum - yeah it does equal yelling - that's
what you do when your species is genuinely threatened) is part
of YOUR confirmation bias?
>
> You don't? Well, try this on for size:
>
> You consistently ignore the reality of the tsunami of
propaganda out there that tells people everything is hunky dory.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Ashvin wrote an
excellent article about how FUBAR things were/are. I do believe
Ashvin wrote that article out of a sense of frustration about
how people REFUSED to see how they were being USED to further a
morally depraved status quo fostered by TPTB. He was, and is,
right.
>
> THAT morally depraved status quo didn't just happen. Social
Darwinism was, and is at the heart of it, is it not? Alan
doesn't go for that. Alan doesn't DO "judgements" as to ethical
or not. Alan, unfortunately supported by GO, prefers to avoid
admitting the mere possibility that the ROOT of our FUBAR
situation is moral depravity.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure about that. Alan specifically said that our real
problems are NOT material and rather "spiritual", so I am
inclined to believe that he agrees with you and I about the ROOT
of our situations. Of course, the Orwellian PTB have made it
very difficult for him to weigh in.
--- Quote ---
> Perhaps GO hasn't seen that. I hope GO gets that now. Alan
refuses to think things are FUBAR. He says that is "exaggerating
extreme outcomes".
>
> Of course your piece about our FUBAR society did not define
FUBAR effects in the biosphere. It was an article on economics.
But really, do you think you can ignore the cause and effect
chain that leads from moral depravity to extreme environmental
degradation? You can't. You can, and probably will ::), argue
things haven't gotten that bad yet, and Alan is merely warning
against "irrational and sensationalist hyperbole".
>
> No, he isn't doing that. He is bathing in that river in Egypt.
WHY? Because he has an a priori (faulty) logical premise, as
does GO, that there is no massive and powerful organized element
out there with the Means, Motive and Opportunity to put people
to sleep about how FUBAR things are. So do you. That's called
endowment bias.
--- End Quote ---
There is a "massive" and powerful organized element putting
people to sleep. There are also massive and unorganized elements
doing it.
And there is a small, somewhat organized element OVER-reacting
to the above and exaggerating extreme outcomes and preaching
Apocalypse. You are now officially a part of it.
This is simple logic - if you yell out that incremental measures
are a waste of time and there is a 95% chance of extinction in
the next 100 years, people who hear and believe you will stop
any "incremental" measures and GIVE UP HOPE.
In your mind, there is A LOT of evidence to back up this NTHE
prediction, so as to make it beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I
understand why you may be willing to make the assertion despite
its logical implications. But I say the assertion is absurd.
--- Quote ---
> WHAT probability do you give to N.T.H.E. ?
>
> PLEASE, lurkers and posters of all stripes weigh in. Give us a
percent number from one to 1 to 100. Palloy can do the math. UB
can tell us how the probability of a threat DOES NOT have to be
greater than 50% do justify IMMEDIATE action, rather than
incremental measures. I'll wager that 20% is enough to dispense
with incremental measures, but I'm a "victim" of "confirmation
bias" so I may be a bit prejudiced. ::)
>
> And Ashvin, PLEASE, don't claim you don't have enough data or
knowledge of environmental science to avoid giving a number.
Don't play the lawyer avoiding being buttonholed into a corner.
You HAVE a number in your head. That NUMBER influences
everything you say about this subject.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, I have a number in my head. Let me clear, that's ALL it is
- a number in my head. I'd say <1% chance of NTHE in the next
100 years. It's not backed up by anything but feeling and loose
speculation.
This is not being "the lawyer", it is being reasonable, logical
and responsible. Reason tells me that it is a FOOL'S errand to
assign probabilities to such a major event.
The only thing that really gives me confidence in the number in
my head is my spiritual outlook. If you're going to point to
spiritual realities as the ROOT problems, then you can't ignore
spiritual realities as the ROOT solution.
[/quote]
Ashvin, I find your tone is dismissive. I think Surly explained
the whys and wherefors of Alan's thread hogging and thoroughly
tedious repetitious posts.
--- Quote from: Surly1 link ---
>
> [quote=Ashvin]Well this is ridiculous :emthdown:, but
unsurprising...
>
> You guys wanted an excuse to kill the dialogue, and you found
it in his "PSA", which was tolerated just fine until you
couldn't respond to his substantive points anymore.
>
--- End Quote ---
Plenty of people responded in copious detail to what you
euphemistically describe as Alan's "substantive points." Your
assertion that his "PSA" was tolerated "just fine" is wholly in
error.
[quote=Ashvin]Relegating him to the Dungeon is exhibit A of your
cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and general
unwillingness to entertain anything that doesn't back up Doom on
the horizon.[/quote]
Classic ad hom. -2. Alan is most assuredly NOT in the Dungeon;
his posts are subject to moderation. That is all. Apparently he
has taken his fit of pique and gone elsewhere to enlighten the
unwashed. His contributions are still welcome; his evangelism
less so.
[quote=Ashvin]DD has taken a huge step towards becoming a site
for propaganda now, NOT journalism or sound analysis.
[/quote]
This site has always had a POV, and no one who reads DD or the
comedic stylings of RE on a regular basis, would EVER accuse
this site of "sound analysis." It is the contribution of
different voices read and considered in whole that give this
site whatever dubious value it may have. Here's hoping that in
the future you will be as generous with your contributions as
you are with your criticism.
[/quote]
Your response to Surly was way over the top. So, you think this
forum is into "newspeak" or is a "propaganda outlet" that
overreacts to negative news, retreating into "hysterics"? For a
person coming from TAE, a site that will not give me the time of
day, despite the fact that I have been reasonable and logical in
everything I post, that is absolutely Orwellian on your part.
Despite Ilargi's FREQUENT behemoth articles, I have never heard
you say WORD ONE about their huge word count, but you were quick
to critique my "excessive" verbiage. The Automatic Earth has no
difficulties censoring people they don't want there. Your
position is hypocritical.
Your descent into derision and mockery of my position that we
are in danger of extinction is sad. I am not a nervous nelly.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
As you have noticed on my forum, I am continuing the debate with
Alan.
I totally disagree with your claim that our extinction
trajectory, if proven to be factual, is cause for despair. That
is hyperbole on your part. I repeat, I did NOT say it was a sure
thing. I said there is a high probability of it occurring. If
YOU want to overreact to bad news, that's YOUR problem. As an
allegedly logical and reasonable person, you should ask for
point by point evidence to back the assertion that extreme
outcomes are NOT being exaggerated.
You aren't doing that here. You don't wish to take the subject
seriously. THAT is part of YOUR world view/endowment bias.
As to Alan's agreement that the root of the problem is spiritual
in nature, I certainly agree. But Alan has ridiculed the faith
you and I share in the past. I guess you have forgotten that.
Perhaps he is into some Gaia faith but try not to get confused
about what Alan means by "spirituality", OKAY?
One more thing: This debate cannot address root causes until we
are all on the same page about what is actually happening in the
physical world of the planetary biosphere. As long as you
ascribe extinction warnings to the category of hysterics and
propaganda, you will question the credibility of any bit of
negative data presented.
I presented this data to Alan at the start of the debate in my
forum. I'm waiting for him to answer without mockery or
derision.
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png
--- Quote ---
> Extinct life forms aren't coming back, Alan. I don't consider
that encouraging, do you?
>
>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130915230122.png
>
> WE are killing those animals, not "natural" selection, Alan.
Please do NOT bring the fossil fueler argument that, since 99%
of all the life forms that have lived on earth have gone
extinct, a few thousand more A YEAR is no big deal.
>
> It's a BIG deal, Alan. We can't bring them back. And we still
know very little about what we will miss when they are gone. And
hard science has proven that the RATE of extinctions we are
witnessing is unprecedented in human history.
>
> The precautionary principle of science DEMANDS that we do
everything we can to prevent pollution or cruelty or greed
caused extinctions BECAUSE we are part of this biosphere and we
do not fully understand how these life forms fit in to our
requirements for species perpetuation.
>
> We are ignoring that principle.
>
> Yes, the fine print at the bottom of that graphic says it is
an estimate. Do you think the count is "alarmist"? Do you think
they are "exaggerating extreme outcomes"? In fact, Poodwaddle is
far more conservative than many other serious biosphere tracking
sites out there.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/picking-up-where-we-left-off-(at-dd)/msg3758/#msg3758
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/picking-up-where-we-left-off-(at-dd)/msg3758/#msg3758
Ashvin, your dismissive tone and outlook is unreasonable,
illogical and, considering who butters your bread at TAE,
Orwellian, counselor.
Your assertion that a tiny group can "overreact" to a tsunami of
propaganda by TPTB to keep people asleep is not a logical
statement; it's ridiculous. But it is based on your view that
there IS NO massive propaganda effort to put people to sleep
(SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).
#Post#: 3765--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 14, 2015, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan,
I'll check it out. But let's try to stay on track, okay? We need
to agree on the PHYSICAL state of the biosphere BEFORE we
address the reason Homo SAPS are so destructive (i.e. ROOT
causes).
Please answer the extinction post. 8)
Please tell me what China has done to improve the environment
and what it has done to degrade it in the last 30 years.
#Post#: 3766--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest28
Date: September 14, 2015, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You weren't banned A21, you got yourself moderated for spamming
the Diner. I warned you that repeatedly posting the same screed
would be considered spamming, and then you went right ahead and
did it again.
Besides that, you are making dozens of posts a day on your own
agenda. If AG will tolerate that, that is his bizness, but I
won't on the Diner.
RE
#Post#: 3767--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 14, 2015, 7:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RE,
Exactly right.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
Alan hasn't tried repetitious posts yet. I have warned him not
to, among other things. I have clearly stated I demand he
reciprocate respect and cut the arrogance, mockery and derision.
I have warned him that his pitch is way to patronizing. And the
"convince US" argument he makes sounds like he wants to position
himself as royalty. Only people far too filled with themselves
use "US" instead of "ME".
Alan claims he wants to "stay on track", then he does not honor
requests to bring all debating points to the table by asking me
to read something he wrote elsewhere. WTF!?
I ask him to provide data and he just goes away.
Alan, you have about 3 days before I shut down this thread. If
you do not wish to respond to my requests for data to defend
your position, then you are violating a cardinal rule of debate
that requires you to bring all your points to the table with
evidence that defends them.
Also Alan, please NOTE that both RE and Surly are admins here
too. 8)
#Post#: 3769--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 14, 2015, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan,
There was a book written in the 1960's titled, "Silent Spring".
THAT book predicted an extreme outcome IF we kept using DDT (egg
shells weakened and life forms that reproduced by eggs would NOT
reproduce) where the birds and many other species would die.
BECAUSE of that book, we obtained a lot of environmental law
safeguards (that HAVE BEEN mostly REVERSED by a massive
corporate lobbying/propaganda effort).
The precautionary principle of science dictated that we STOP
using DDT.
The precautionary principle of science dictates that we STOP
using fossil fuels. The science is much clearer than it was for
DDT!
But the point is, at the time the book was written, MANY PEOPLE
said it was "ABSURD" to believe DDT could cause the extinction
of several thousand Monotreme species (mammals that lay eggs).
They did not want people shouting from the rooftops that: WE
were in danger, along with the Monotremes, because if DDT did
that to egg shells, WHAT ELSE MIGHT IT DO?
You and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats itself.
:(
#Post#: 3771--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest17
Date: September 14, 2015, 9:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for the length of this, but agelbert's post that I
am responding to was VERY long.
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] You consistently ignore the reality of the tsunami
of propaganda out there that tells people everything is hunky
dory.
>
--- End Quote ---
AG, you are not telling the full story.
There exists a well-known and well-documented strong bias of the
media for BAD NEWS, disaster news, and the reason is simple:
because it has great shock (emotional) value, and people go
where their emotions lead them. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the
old newspaperman's motto.
Further, over many decades a TON of press has been given to
doomsday visions and theories, going back to the overpopulation
hype of the 1960s (and even before then), numerous environmental
scares of the 70s and beyond, plus of course the Club of Rome
thing. All of this was VERY PROMINENTLY COVERED IN THE
MAINSTREAM PRESS. And ALL of those doomsday predictions have
proven (of course) false -- and this is a point of some
significance, I believe. I wrote about this over on DD. I'm sure
you saw it.
You might be able to claim, successfully, that particular issues
that YOU deem of special import are not being given the
attention that they deserve. But you cannot seriously claim that
the media is generally Pollyanna-ish or working overtime to
"tell people that everything is hunky dory". If anything, they
are working overtime to tell people that crime is out of
control, natural disasters are on the increase, shady and
corrupt behavior is rampant, racial tensions are about to
explode, etc., etc., etc.
ASHVIN wrote:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] I'm not sure about that. Alan specifically said
that our real problems are NOT material and rather "spiritual",
so I am inclined to believe that he agrees with you and I about
the ROOT of our situations.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just to expand on that for a moment: I think that all the
various material problems -- oil/resource shortfalls,
environmental problems, etc. -- are solvable, many of them quite
easily (others, not so much, but still solvable). What is hard
to solve are problems like low intelligence, failure of
imagination, inability to see one's own faults, greed, and
numerous other things that fall under the general heading of
"matters of the spirit". THAT'S where we have very serious
problems. Peak oil? NBD! Peak rare earths? NBD! Peak greed? VBD!
(Very Big Deal).
ASHVIN wrote:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]This is simple logic - if you yell out that
incremental measures are a waste of time and there is a 95%
chance of extinction in the next 100 years, people who hear and
believe you will stop any "incremental" measures and GIVE UP
HOPE.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree. This hysterical apocalypticism does nothing to help our
cause. It only hurts it. It already HAS hurt it, in a big way.
As I wrote back on DD, the denialist/etc. movements were born
and raised -- so to say -- amidst apocalyptic/doomer predictions
that ALL WERE PROVEN FALSE. Their very denialism is in part a
reaction to that. It is a terrible shame, because there ARE very
real risks (AGW and etc.) that must urgently be addressed.
ASHVIN WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] I'd say <1% chance of NTHE in the next 100 years.
It's not backed up by anything but feeling and loose
speculation.
> This is not being "the lawyer", it is being reasonable,
logical and responsible. Reason tells me that it is a FOOL'S
errand to assign probabilities to such a major event.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree: fool's errand.
ASHVIN WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] Well this is ridiculous :emthdown:, but
unsurprising...
> You guys wanted an excuse to kill the dialogue, and you found
it in his "PSA", which was tolerated just fine until you
couldn't respond to his substantive points anymore....
Relegating him to the Dungeon is exhibit A of your cognitive
dissonance, confirmation bias and general unwillingness to
entertain anything that doesn't back up Doom on the horizon.
>
--- End Quote ---
Haha! Yeah, probably. Who knows, who cares? Not worth getting in
a twist about. They can have whatever kind of forum they like.
SURLY WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Apparently he has taken his fit of pique and gone
elsewhere to enlighten the unwashed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Fit of pique? Try fit of boredom! But yes, gone to elsewhere...
to have an intelligent conversation, I hope. You should
consider that having better things to do is not the same as
"leaving in a fit of pique".
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Your response to Surly was way over the top. So,
you think this forum is into "newspeak" or is a "propaganda
outlet" that overreacts to negative news, retreating into
"hysterics"?
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't know about "newspeak", and I would not call it
"propaganda", but the "overreacting to negative news" part is
abundantly clear and undeniable. RE appears to LIVE for negative
news. It is a sort of paraphilia.
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Your descent into derision and mockery of my
position that we are in danger of extinction is sad. I am not a
nervous nelly. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
--- End Quote ---
I take it you are talking to Ashvin. Where is his derision and
mockery? I would like to see it, just to know where we all
stand. Please quote it, or give a link. Thanks. (So far, all
I've seen from Ashvin on this is his estimate of ~1% for NTHE.
But I did not see anything that I would call derision or
mockery.)
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]I totally disagree with your claim that our
extinction trajectory, if proven to be factual, is cause for
despair.
>
--- End Quote ---
To clarify: Ashvin did not say that it is GOOD cause for
despair. He said that people who hear that kind of talk will
tend to react in despair (whether good occasion exists or not).
Ashvin wrote: "If you yell out that incremental measures are a
waste of time and there is a 95% chance of extinction in the
next 100 years, people who hear and believe you will stop any
"incremental" measures and GIVE UP HOPE." Ashvin is right.
That's what many of them will do -- rightly or wrongly.
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]As to Alan's agreement that the root of the problem
is spiritual in nature, I certainly agree. But Alan has
ridiculed the faith you and I share in the past.
>
--- End Quote ---
When did I ridicule your faith? What IS your faith? I know you
are a Christian. That's all I know. I generally don't ridicule
people's religious convictions -- unless they are so over the
top that they deserve ridicule (e.g. some flavors of
fundamentalistic abrahamic faiths).
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Perhaps he is into some Gaia faith but try not to
get confused about what Alan means by "spirituality", OKAY?
>
--- End Quote ---
I see. Perhaps alan is into some flaky Gaia faith, but let's not
get confused into thinking that his understanding of
spirituality is up to OUR exalted Christian level. Is that it,
AG? If so, too bad for you.
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] This debate cannot address root causes until we
are all on the same page about what is actually happening in the
physical world of the planetary biosphere. As long as you
ascribe extinction warnings to the category of hysterics and
propaganda, you will question the credibility of any bit of
negative data presented.
> I presented this data to Alan at the start of the debate in my
forum. I'm waiting for him to answer without mockery or
derision.
>
--- End Quote ---
What data are you talking about?
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] Extinct life forms aren't coming back, Alan. I
don't consider that encouraging, do you?
> WE are killing those animals, not "natural" selection, Alan.
Please do NOT bring the fossil fueler argument that, since 99%
of all the life forms that have lived on earth have gone
extinct, a few thousand more A YEAR is no big deal.
> It's a BIG deal, Alan. We can't bring them back. And we still
know very little about what we will miss when they are gone. And
hard science has proven that the RATE of extinctions we are
witnessing is unprecedented in human history.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree. What is your point? What am I supposed to do? It is a
VERY BAD thing that these extinctions are happening. What are we
supposed to do? Conclude that human extinction is likely?
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] The precautionary principle of science DEMANDS
that we do everything we can to prevent pollution or cruelty or
greed caused extinctions BECAUSE we are part of this biosphere
and we do not fully understand how these life forms fit in to
our requirements for species perpetuation.
> We are ignoring that principle.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, I have problems with the precautionary principle. Taken
too far, it is nihilistic. If you cleave to it excessively, you
will be inhibited from doing ANYTHING. I think we need the
precautionary principle, but it must be accompanied by a
precautionary principle pertaining to the precautionary
principle itself.
AGELBERT WROTE:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] Yes, the fine print at the bottom of that graphic
says it is an estimate. Do you think the count is "alarmist"? Do
you think they are "exaggerating extreme outcomes"?
>
--- End Quote ---
No, no counts or data pertaining to anything is alarmist. Only
interpretations of or extrapolations from data can be alarmist.
In other words: the facts are the facts. But what we MAKE of the
facts -- how we interpret them, the tales that we spin FROM the
facts -- is something else. If observations indicate beyond
reasonable doubt that a certain specie of bear has become
extinct, I believe it. What is questionable is the implications
of that extinction.
#Post#: 3772--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest17
Date: September 14, 2015, 10:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to AGELBERT ONLY:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] if you cannot take the possibility of human
extinction seriously, the debate is over before it started.
>
--- End Quote ---
Depends on what you mean by "seriously". I told you that I
thought it was possible, but the probability is very low. I said
.001% chance, just as a guess. Does that mean I don't take it
seriously?
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Consider this a game of chess. We've got lots of
time. Before we discuss solutions. let's see if we can DEFINE
what's going on out there and why.
> That's why I'm researching at poodwaddle. Government stats on
this, that and the other might be a bit gamed, but that's all we
have to go on. AGAIN, if you don't find them credible, we cannot
debate.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have no idea what "poodwaddle" is, and you have not said what
it is. Government stats are usually reliable, but with
exceptions (e.g. inflation!).
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]You think you can assume your position is
impregnable. What is your evidence?
>
--- End Quote ---
Why do you think that I assume my position is impregnable? What
IS my position? Do you know? Please state it, in your words.
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Tell me about all the bioremediation you have
witnessed in China.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have not witnessed any of it. I have read about it.
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] Years ago you posted about all the greening they
were involved with. Did you ADD their efforts to your positive
view of our future? Probably. That's good. Did you SUBTRACT the
degradation of China's biomes from your equation? I hope so.
Show me proof that China is more biologically diverse now than
it was a mere 30 years ago.
>
--- End Quote ---
1. It probably is NOT more diverse than 30 years ago. But I
don't know that for sure. I'm not sure anyone does, or even that
anyone COULD know.
2. Whether or not it is more diverse, even if known, would not
give us any final conclusion as to the efficacy of their
environmental efforts. The environment is a big thing and a big
subject, not reduceable to biodiversity -- important though that
may be.
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]I don't think it is. I think I can prove it isn't.
I'm sticking with China now because you know a lot about China.
I do too. And I know quite a bit about the other giant polluter
called the USA (with Europe not far behind). I'll get to them
later.
> You first. Spell out the biosphere math of China for me
please. Your optimism must have some basis. If it does, I'll
alter my position. If it doesn't I expect you to alter yours.
>
--- End Quote ---
HOW would I, or anyone, "spell out the biosphere math of China"?
What does that even mean?
#Post#: 3773--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for
Procrastination
DIR By: guest17
Date: September 14, 2015, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to AGELBERT ONLY:
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] let's try to stay on track, okay? We need to agree
on the PHYSICAL state of the biosphere BEFORE we address the
reason Homo SAPS are so destructive (i.e. ROOT causes).
> Please answer the extinction post. 8)
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you mean the table you posted of proven animal extinctions? I
did respond, above. It was not much of a response, because I
don't know what sort of answer you are looking for. You did not
ask me a question; you just presented some data.
I agree that extinctions of animals is a very bad thing, if that
is what you were wondering.
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt]Please tell me what China has done to improve the
environment and what it has done to degrade it in the last 30
years.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's a very big question!
I posted a large volume of material on that subject a few years
back on DD. You were present, and commented on it. You could
re-read that thread, and you would find it very informative I'm
sure. Also, most of the information would still be pertinent,
i.e. the passage of a few years would not have changed much.
I have not, over the last couple years, kept up with the
subject very well, except to cut and paste a few things to my
files more or less in passing. It has not been my major topic of
interest.
You will forgive me if I cannot maintain a goodly level of
expertise on that subject while also studying scores of other
subjects, working for a living, participating in many different
things with different people, maintaining my health, and
generally living a life.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page