I have been trying for the last few days to discover a coherent logic towards my feelings on man’s relationship with his environment. This is proving not to be simple.
The process started when I heard on World Service radio a gentleman from the International Panel on Climate Change discussing their latest report. As you know, I tend to accept the established opinion on climate change, and rather take the view that if all our industrial activity were not affecting the atmosphere, that would be strange.
But what struck me was that the gentleman said that a pause in warming for the last fifteen years was not significant, as fifteen years was a blip in processes that last over millennia.
Well, that would certainly be very true if you are considering natural climate change. But we are not – we are considering man-made climate change. In terms of the period in which the scale of man’s industrial activity has been having a significant impact on the environment, surely fifteen years is a pretty important percentage of that period? Especially as you might naturally imagine the process to be cumulative – fifteen years at the start when nothing much happened would be more explicable.
Having tucked away that doubt, I started to try to think deeper. Man is, of course, himself a part of nature. Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet. I do not take the view man should not change his environment – otherwise I should not be sitting in a house. The question is rather, are we inadvertently making changes to the environment to our own long term detriment?
That rejection of what you might call the Gaia principle – that the environmental status quo is an end in itself – has ramifications. It is hard to conceptualise our relationship with gases or soil, but easier in terms of animals. I am not a vegetarian – I am quite happy that we farm and eat cattle, for example – and you might argue that the cattle are pretty successful themselves, symbiotic survivors of a kind. Do I think other species have a value in themselves? Is there any harm in killing off a species of insect, other than the fact that biodiversity may be reduced in ways that remove potential future advantages to man, or there may be knock on consequences we know not of that damage man somehow? I am not quite sure, but in general I seem in practice to take the view that exploitation of other species and substantial distortion of prior ecological balance to suit men’s needs is fine, so presumably the odd extinction is fine too, unless it damages man long term.
I strongly disapprove of hurting animals for sport, and want to see them have the best quality of life possible, preferably wild. But I like to eat and wear them. I am not quite sure why it is OK to wear animal skin on our feet or carry it as a bag, but not to wear “fur”. What is the difference, other than that leather has had the hair systematically rubbed off as part of the process of making it? A trivial issue, but one that obviously relates to the deeper questions.
Yes I draw a distinction between animals which are intelligent and those which are not. I would not eat whale or dolphin. But this does not seem entirely logical – animal intelligence and sensibility is evidently a continuum. Many animals mourn, for example. The BBC World Service radio (my main contact with the outside world at present – I have just today found my very, very weak internet connection just about works if I try it at 5am) informed me a couple of days ago that orang-utans have the ability to think forward and tell others where they will be the next day. Why cattle and fish are daft enough to eat is hard to justify.
I quite appreciate the disbenefits to man of radically changing his environment, even if it could be done without long term risk to his existence – the loss of beauty, of connection to seasons and forms of behaviour with which we evolved. But I regard those as important only as losses to man, not because nature is important intrinsically. In short, if I thought higher seas, no polar bears and no glaciers would not hurt man particularly, I don’t suppose I would have much to say against it. I fear the potential repercussions are too dangerous to man. At base, I don’t actually care about a polar bear.
Thought I could summon the spelling Stasi/NSA/Guardia out too, and presto, here we have it.
You damn fine well knew the semantics of “drive by sniping”, but could not let the opportunity go, could you? Not predictable at all, not at all!
Your finely developed septic powers, can without the aid of a crystal ball or whatever the witches use, can see “ROFL and PMSL” are fake/put up/not true too. What can be said, facing such superpowers?
This is the extent of “contributions” from you; assertions, baseless assumptions, that are concluded in your customary denunciations! Indeed traits of children and those not accustomed to reasoning and critical discourse.
======
Chris, despite your statement obviating the need for any further debate, nonetheless there is a debate.
PMSL, I am in fucking fits here. **
Perhaps this would be of some use;
** N.B. dreo; fake, totally fucking fake too. PMSL
Chris
Yes, I agree but the far greater problem with Darwin’s Theory is that his superseded, subverted and over simplified the cybernetic theory of Russel Wallace. His theory saw the unit of survival as a flexible organism-in-its-environment (not independent as with Darwinism), where natural selection acts mostly to keep the species unvarying but may act at a higher level to keep that complex variable … survival.
Mike, Ben,, Brian, spacewatchers,
Assuming a big chunk of rock doesn’t land on my head before-hand, May 24th 2014 looks exciting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/209P/LINEAR
http://www.imcce.fr/langues/en/ephemerides/phenomenes/meteor/DATABASE/209_LINEAR/2014/index.php
@Ressident Dissident: “Yes lets throw away Darwin’s theory of evolution and replace it with some nonsense from an anti-semitic website which blames everything on the Rothchilds, Freemasonry and the forged protocols of ZIon – or we could look at the other link you provide which pumps aliens and the paranormal. Talk about destroying whatever credibility you had with a single post”
The website you refer to is written by a Jewish Canadian who is very critical of the Israeli government and the Zionist kabal. I’m not sure how that makes him anti semitic – he speaks fondly of all the people of Palastine.
Any views on the original racist title of Darwin’s book though?
Post Normal Science is the term that has been given to a new science and strategy for dealing with environmental issues in which there are high stakes and uncertainty, plural and conflicting value systems, and in which decisions are urgent, like global warming, biodiversity loss and so on. Induction and deduction methodologies which represent a reductionist approach to science may work for linear systems in engineering, physics perhaps but NOT for complex cyclic systems strewn with uncertainty and unknowns like ecological systems….
“Indeed traits of children and those not accustomed to reasoning and critical discourse.”
‘Critical discourse’ like your pseudo-intellectual drivel?
You’ve been plastering it all over this place, seven paragraphs at a time, since you arrived.
/ends//bye bye n00b
———————————————
“While I totally agree that man made climate change should be taken very seriously – that doesn’t mean that most climate scientists do not accept that there are natural and largely unexplained cycles in temperatures on both a global and a localised level. That said since such cycles are still largley unexplained – and therefore unforcastable it would be idiotic to assume that they can be relied upon to counter the problems that are already arising from man made global warming.”
Yup.
http://www.mudguardtricycles.co.uk/photo-gallery/
Yet another massive fireball over the USA last night.
http://www.amsmeteors.org/2013/09/another-massive-fireball-over-atlanta/
Chris Jones
This whole issue of whether Darwin was a racist is pretty old hatr and is more than adequately addressed here.
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
It was a website you referred to – if you think that quoting the forged protocols of Zion as though they were fact – or the constant references to freemasonry etc do not constitute anti-semitism then I very much doubt that you would ever recognise anti-semitism. It is quite possible to be critical of the government of Israel without resorting to such racism – but you seem now to be arguing (without any prompting) that because someone is Jewish and critical of the government of Israel that it is not possible to be an anti-semite as well which really is quite illogical and until you work that Out might I suggest that you stay away from subsjects such as science.
I should also add that Isaac Newton had some very odd ideas and that Galileo was pretty beastly to his family (he didn’t marry the mother of his 3 children) – but I will continue to believe in gravity and that the earth goes round the sun rather than vice versa.
“blames everything on the Rothchilds, Freemasonry and the forged protocols of ZIon”
There’s something in the Zionist cultural milieu that encourages this kind of perverse craving for attention at all costs. Say what you like about the Afrikaners, when they were in Israel’s role as brutal, racist skunk of nations, they were blessedly free of this sort of manipulative grandiosity. They made themselves useful as criminal enforcers without much fuss.
Let’s face it, you Zionists are handicapped by a very annoying disposition. You need to work on that if you’re going to make it as hostis humani generis.
Unlike your “contributions”; bitching, drive by sniping, not forgetting teaching punctuation, grammar, spelling, and joining in the ziofuckwit farrago to kick up a shit storm and disappearing only to come back to redux.
Although after your “urban dictionary” foray, you have added to your vocabulary of shite on demand; /ends//bye bye n00b Fucking pitiful.
1- When was the thermometer invented?
2- When did the said thermometers became calibrated in a standard fashion?
3- Where these thermometers were placed to record any temperatures?
4- Who decides where should they place the said thermometers for taking measurements?
5- The data that is currently being used, covers what percentage of the planets surface?
6- Why are the surface temperatures of any interest?
7- Have the temperature gradients of the stratosphere, been subject of any change?
8- How far back does the data in 7 go back to?
Understandably these mere pseudo-intellectual drivel have nothing to do with the feeling in your water that clearly determines global warming is man made.
“Well after 1814, in other words.”
And 1814 is well after the start of the industrial revolution 100 years after they started using steam power. Fossil fuels were being shipped into London by the barge full.
But then 1814 was the last frost fair not the last time the Thames froze, there were only ever six frost fairs over a 260 year period.
Somebody earlier referred to B.Liar’s hypocrisy for using a private jet for his trips whilst he has been recently expounding on global warming.
This Mail reporter must have been reading Komodo’s links on an earlier thread about the Bombardier flights.
Blair Force One: Former Prime Minister rents £30million private jet for globe-trotting at a cost of £7,000 an hour
The 581mph Bombardier Global Express can seat up to 19 people
It is owned by a mystery businessman who rents it out
Blair has a long history of jet travel including in aircraft owned by Gaddafi
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2437193/Blair-Force-One-Former-Prime-Minister-rents-30million-private-jet-globe-trotting-cost-7-000-hour.html
Pretty well everything has been said, and I have only a couple of points to add. In general I agree with Craig.
I am not really a scientist, more a historian who had to study climate change as part of his doctorate 30 years ago.
As mentioned earlier, the climate change issue has become far too binary recently. You’re either an industrialist who denies climate change for business reasons, or you’re a scientist who agrees with the anthropogenic global warming model, and if you don’t agree you’re in denial.
While it is obvious that industrialists will want to deny anthropogenic climate change, it is also true that climate change science is now a gross machine, in which careers and money are invested, and it is difficult to draw back.
The argument as far as I understand it is that there is a vast increase in the proportion of CO2 in the air, and that this should be reflected in increase of temperatures. If this is not the case, as has happened recently, it’s only a blip.
The fact is that you can only look at climate change in the long term, and not only look at recent evidence, which is the tendency of climate change scientists. I only know of two methods: one is ice cores from Greenland, which show changes in the level of Oxygen 18, and the other is cave stalactites.
As far as I know, the results don’t go beyond the variation known from the historical past. “Historical past” means the period of writing, about 3000 BC. In earlier human times, there was greater variation, and more before.
Evidently in global warming, there are two elements: the natural warming since the “little Ice Age” of the 16th century, and anthropogenic warming. It is difficult to distinguish between the two.
Our scientists have difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees. We should try to to see what is natural and what is anthropogenic.
That said, it is evident that our environment is degrading rapidly through pollution, but it is not necessarily a problem of temperature increase.
@Chris Jones
You’re a creationist then?
http://www.examiner.com/article/was-it-a-meteor-that-lit-up-the-sky-last-night
Sorry for cut and paste duplication mess above.
Fred
Wasn’t your point that the Thames stopped freezing because various bridges were rebuilt and the Embankment built, thus making the river flow faster?
All I did was to point out that the Embankment wasn’t started until well after the date you gave for the last Frost Fair.
What’s your problem with that?
BTW, when you say that 1814 was,’t the last time the Thames froze, you’re right of course. For instance, it froze at Windsor in 1963. Depends whether you’re talking about the tidal Thames or the Thames upriver of the tide, doesn’t it? What are you trying to prove exactly?
“The argument as far as I understand it is that there is a vast increase in the proportion of CO2 in the air, and that this should be reflected in increase of temperatures. If this is not the case, as has happened recently, it’s only a blip.”
It’s a bit more cut and dried than that. They have had satellites in orbit for the last 40 years which can measure the amount of heat the earth is radiating into space at the frequencies associated with co2. They know that with the increase in co2 more heat is being reflected back and they know how much more. Global surface temperatures are not a measure of the increase in the amount of heat. A spark is very hot compared to a pan of hot water but the pan of water holds a lot more heat.
There isn’t any doubt that more heat is being stored in the earth than there would be without man made co2, the only debate is about where it is going and what effect it is going to have, that is the complicated part.
“Although after your “urban dictionary” foray, you have added to your vocabulary of shite on demand”
Fedup, no-one could add anything to the ‘vocabulary of shite’ without your excrescent presence. You are the fuck shit piss master, and don’t we all know it. Stop being so modest!
But since Dreoilin is now apparently a ‘ziofuckwit’ then presumably so are Hamas. Will no one be saved?
A special new film is released – ALUNA
http://www.alunathemovie.com/en/
Chris Jones enjoy this;
NSA Chief: “We Stand For Freedom”
@Ressident Dissident: “This whole issue of whether Darwin was a racist is pretty old hatr and is more than adequately addressed here. http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2488 It was a website you referred to – if you think that quoting the forged protocols of Zion as though they were fact – or the constant references to freemasonry etc do not constitute anti-semitism then I very much doubt that you would ever recognise anti-semitism. It is quite possible to be critical of the government of Israel without resorting to such racism – but you seem now to be arguing (without any prompting) that because someone is Jewish and critical of the government of Israel that it is not possible to be an anti-semite as well which really is quite illogical and until you work that Out might I suggest that you stay away from subsjects such as science”
Yes that makes perfect sense there. Being critical of free masonry is anti semitic! And people who don’t understand your flawed definition of anti Semitism should stay away from subjects such as science!? You seem to not know your subject very well: The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in the Near and Middle East East, including the Arab Palestines; it does not mean solely the Israeli people or people of Jewish faith. I don’t agree with everything Henry Makow says but thank god there are people like him prepared to refuse to accept the paralysing agenda of extreme political correctness.
If a particular website upsets your tastes you can search for the same information on other sites that are more agreeable to you. However, if you are going to be critical of people’s links it might be an idea not to link to a Richard Dawkins foundation website! He’s the great thinker who preaches rational thinking and tolerance of other’s views and beliefs – unless they have any kind of religious or non cult like Darwinesque beliefs of course. Then he’ll turn his crimson faced wrath on them. He is a classic pseudo liberal and anti religious, anti free thinking zealot. He also claims to be a scientist but did not know salt water is heavier than fresh water until a teenage girl corrected him on it. Not a good sign.
I am sorry that the Zionist sham is being found out and exposed all over the world and I really hope the people of Israel become free of this Zionism war mongering nonsense in the very near future..
“Wasn’t your point that the Thames stopped freezing because various bridges were rebuilt and the Embankment built, thus making the river flow faster?”
Not my point, that seems to be the general consensus.
Just pointing out that the fact the Thames embankment wasn’t built for some years after the last frost fair is irrelevant because the time between frost fairs had been many years. Not like they had them every year then stopped in 1814, they were decades apart.
Or to put it simply it’s just a load of climate sceptic bullshit which has no relevance whatsoever to the debate but they just keep churning it out at every opportunity as if it means something.
@Fred “You’re a creationist then?”
In the sense that the earth as we know it was somehow created either by chance or process, yes of course. By what method or by whom or what (or not) then I am agnostic but increasingly find it hard to believe that the combined immaculateness of nature is all accidental. And to look around you, it should be noticable that there are forces on planet earth trying to destroy that immaculateness
@Chris Jones
I am well prepared to believe that Darwin was racist, at the time all the southern states of America used slave labour and saw coloured people as animals. I am quite prepared to believe he was a eugenicist, that didn’t go out of fashion till WWII.
This has no bearing on the validity of his theory of evolution though.
@Chris Jones
No one has suggested it was accidental. The question is if man was created in his present form by a superior being or if he evolved from more primitive primates. Was he created or did he evolve?
AA, Brian and Mike
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/perseids.cfm
“The pieces of space debris that interact with our atmosphere to create the Perseids originate from comet 109P/Swift-Tuttle. Swift-Tuttle takes 133 years to orbit the sun once. It was Giovanni Schiaparelli who realized in 1865 that this comet was the source of the Perseids. Comet Swift-Tuttle last visited the inner solar system in 1992.”
The Parseid meteor showers were supposed to peak Aug 12 of this year. Comets and their fragments, like asteroids can result in fireballs of sufficient size that they last longer than the usual brief flame of a smaller meteor.
@Fred – That is indeed the question..
Fred “It’s a bit more cut and dried than that. They have had satellites in orbit for the last 40 years which can measure the amount of heat the earth is radiating into space at the frequencies associated with co2. They know that with the increase in co2 more heat is being reflected back and they know how much more.”
That’s what I said. They measure the quantity of CO2, and they presume it corresponds with the increase of world temperature, but it is not the case. Like I said the only measure is long term temperature sources. For the moment they don’t help.