Global Warming & Deforestation – Do You Continue Doing Art?

[BigJohn]

Nicely said.

Originally Posted by running

i have only spoken of facts. you can have another opinion on what the data says.


i have been right going against the consciousness or what is being sold as before. don't be so insulting to think people cant reason and think without a permission slip. i don't care if somebody comes to my opinion of the matter. i do hope some thinking goes on rather than all the marching. as i said before. there are plenty or scientists and geologists that would love for nothing more to state their case. what we are dealing with is not science. science is open for debate. its on the table. jesus just like this is not. next step from where we are is re-education camps. many are so looking forward to that. thats where we are. i don't have to wonder no more about history. its all around me.

You don't need a permission slip to think and reason, but I don't have to take you seriously when you give out your conclusions. And no, nobody has to take you seriously enough to debate your data and analysis either. Frankly, I don't bother to debate someone once I realize there is zero chance of them ever changing their mind or convincing them where there logic is faulty. Fine, if you want to believe you know more then the worlds scientists then that is your right to believe that, but I don't believe you do at all. Science is always open for debate, but you are not someone who I would bother to debate the science with, I just don't think you are qualified, and you have not given me any reason to feel you are. My point with you is not about the science, this I am quite sure you don't understand. My point is that I, and IMO, any rational person, if forced to look to your expertise on this subject, or to the expertise of the worlds climatologists, they should choose the latter.

Just because you may show up at a international scientific conference of climatologists, and start demanding they let you present your data and analysis, and the laugh you off the stage, does not mean they are somehow closed minded and conspirators. It may mean that within five minutes of listening to you speak on the subject they are going to roll their eyes back in their heads and say, "Oh God, not another one of these guys!" It may mean you don't know enough to be on that stage and taken seriously. It may mean you don't even know enough to know that you don't know enough. Not knowing is fine, being incapable of seeing it is a problem.

When I was taking zoology in college there was this creationist fellow who wasn't enrolled in the classes, but somehow he was always tipped off when the section on evolution came up and would show up anyway. Then he would raise his hand and expect the professor to engage in some sort of endless debate as he presented his religious dogma, or supposed facts he heard about, but couldn't cite the source, or the source was something like the 700 club, and that even if they were true, didn't make the point he thought they did. All he ever succeeded in doing is tick off those who were actually paying for the course and look foolish in everyone's eyes but his own. When they told him he couldn't just show up in classes he wasn't paying for to argue religion with the professor, to tell them that they didn't know what they were talking about, he was convinced it was because they were afraid of the "truth" and didn't want people to know they were being brainwashed into believing in evolution.

Even if they had put his guy in a reeducation camp, I seriously doubt anything would ever change his mind. Honestly, I doubt it was really about the evolution vs creation debate for him, a debate that does not go on at all within science. This was just his way of getting attention and trying to seem important.

[inavalan]

I think that some scientism adherents rival only with some non-dualism adherents in their attitude of superiority. I think it is the unbridled trust in their own intellect which leads to lack of humility. Fortunately, there're none like that on this site.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I think that some scientism adherents rival only with some non-dualism adherents in their attitude of superiority. I think it is the unbridled trust in their own intellect which leads to lack of humility. Fortunately, there're none like that on this site.

Of course not, nobody on this Forum acts like that..........................

[Altair]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I think that some scientism adherents rival only with some non-dualism adherents in their attitude of superiority. I think it is the unbridled trust in their own intellect which leads to lack of humility. Fortunately, there're none like that on this site.

People that aren't scientists and claim to know more about it than those working in such fields every day for decades are the ones lacking humility. It's that sort of bizarre anti-intellectualism that is increasingly making your country the laughing stock of the world.

Tiss rather amazing to me, how some, who without much education, training, or work in a particular area of science, can nevertheless declare themselves to be experts, who know more then all the experts in the world combined.

They say poo poo on those know it all scientists and their foolish faith in science, my intuition tells me they are all wrong. And when others try to tell them they believe their intuition is wrong, and if they have to choose they will go with the worlds scientists, they somehow see those others as being the arrogant ones who base their beliefs on faith.

I have to say it is rather comedic, even if it is a rather tragic comedy that it is helping to bring about.

.

Several points come to mind:

1) It's sheer human arrogance to think that humans are the last in an evolutionary line.

2) I agree with Native Spirit: Humanity is a cancer on the planet. Like all cancers it'll end up killing its host.

3) The ecology is a system - everything is functionally related. So tinker with something here and it'll eventually spread everywhere. It has many interacting internal controls. Every species that becomes extinct will force the ecology to adjust, each plant species, etc.

4) Climate is part of the ecology. Changes in either with provoke changes in the other. Raze a forest, build a large city, fill the land with wind farms will all change the air currents. They aren't walled in, they eventually spread around the globe.

5) World population is increasing exponentially and making increased demands from a finite resource. This alone is unlikely to change until Nature weeds Her garden. The real enemies of humanity are viruses and bacteria, spread easily thanks to easy international travel (as we now know).

6) What hope of reversing it? Very little. Permafrost in Alaska and Siberia has been thawing for at least 40 years, threatening to release masses of methane into the so-called 'air'. How can technology re-freeze millions of cubic miles of permafrost?
.

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Several points come to mind:

1) It's sheer human arrogance to think that humans are the last in an evolutionary line.

2) I agree with Native Spirit: Humanity is a cancer on the planet. Like all cancers it'll end up killing its host.

3) The ecology is a system - everything is functionally related. So tinker with something here and it'll eventually spread everywhere. It has many interacting internal controls. Every species that becomes extinct will force the ecology to adjust, each plant species, etc.

4) Climate is part of the ecology. Changes in either with provoke changes in the other. Raze a forest, build a large city, fill the land with wind farms will all change the air currents. They aren't walled in, they eventually spread around the globe.

5) World population is increasing exponentially and making increased demands from a finite resource. This alone is unlikely to change until Nature weeds Her garden. The real enemies of humanity are viruses and bacteria, spread easily thanks to easy international travel (as we now know).

6) What hope of reversing it? Very little. Permafrost in Alaska and Siberia has been thawing for at least 40 years, threatening to release masses of methane into the so-called 'air'. How can technology re-freeze millions of cubic miles of permafrost?
.

Well said. Ironically, it may turn out that sheer human arrogance is what ensures that humans are at least the last in their own evolutionary line, as cancer kills itself along with it's host. Cancer arises when one cell stops acting like a part of the host and decides it will start living for itself alone. It will take as much nutrition for itself and its offspring as it wants and those foolish host cells can like it or lump it. The host is made up of billions of individual cells, but unless they learn to work together to the benefit of all, instead of just out for themselves, then all perish together along with the host. Some cancers do go into spontaneous remission, but more commonly they end up having to be cut out to save the host.

.

[Altair]

I agree with Lorelyen, although I do want to believe that there can be a bright future. There's a lot more environmental awareness these days, and it's common among younger generations. So there is hope, maybe ''just a fool's hope'', but it's something.

World population can stabilize if we put efforts into human rights and providing education opportunities for girls and women. One of the biggest things that's holding back genuine earth-aligned process is our dominant religions. They're all about dominance and control.

Originally Posted by Altair

I agree with Lorelyen, although I do want to believe that there can be a bright future. There's a lot more environmental awareness these days, and it's common among younger generations. So there is hope, maybe ''just a fool's hope'', but it's something.

World population can stabilize if we put efforts into human rights and providing education opportunities for girls and women. One of the biggest things that's holding back genuine earth-aligned process is our dominant religions. They're all about dominance and control.

I agree, I want to be hopeful in the future.


It's just monkey see monkey do. Most people want to have what others have
and the increasing population will put such a demand on the resources but
it is hard to know what will be the last straw that will start the snowball rolling
to a point of no return.
The lists of negative environmental impacts are long, long ,long.
There are even ones we don't know about yet.
The list's of environmental remediation are rather short.