Earth Hour 2012 – A dissent and poll

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

I know you are just being offensive because you can not win a rational science-based debate about what to do about climate change, but you raise a serious point.

The question is can a person use evil means (like electricity) to further a noble goal (like the abolition of electricity).

It is certainly an interesting question, and one which I will have to ponder. If I don't post again, then you'll know my conclusion.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

I would certainly consider joining that group, the sentiments expressed are truly admirable, even though poorly expressed.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

I would also like to dissent.

Shutting off some electricity for an hour is a meaningless gesture.

If only we could shut off all electricity, forever. That would be worthwhile.

thoughtso · 1 month

That's all very well in non-politically controversial fields like nuclear physics or medicine, but in climatology the distinction between science & politics is much more nuanced. It would be improper for example for UEA to simply give data to the deniers who then try and pick holes in it so as to prevent action.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

Hyperbole much? I've not proposed killing anybody, let alone mass murder of groups of innocent people. (I'll leave aside the inconsistency that most of you guys seem to think the Nazis were good guys who didn't actually murder anybody).

I am simply proposing discouraging a particular type of anti-social behavior.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

I completely disagree, not all climate deniers are mentally ill.

There are really three groups.

Those who are ignorant. They can and should be educated, or re-educated if necessary.
Those who are selfish. They can and should be punished.
Yes, those who are ill. They can and should be treated.

nuclear_is_good · 1 month

I didn't say I thought they deserved prison time. I said some people might say that.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

CO2 level was as high as today (possibly higher) during the MWP which saw an expansion of population

CO2 generates a population expansion isn't that enough reason, all by itself, to stop emitting the damned stuff?

That's even before we get to its other effects like warming, ocean acidification, etc.,

nuclear_is_good · 1 month

Some people might say they deserve more than ridicule - prison time for instance.

Kim147 · 1 month

The Earth is warming and its caused by humans. We are facing disaster. Short-term we need carbon pricing. Medium-term, we need to phase out fossil fuels. Long-term we need a drastically reduced population, and the phasing out of most forms of industrial activity, to achieve sustainability. This is the consensus, supported by 99.9% of climate scientists.

Most so-called "skeptics" are actually religious fundamentalists, or are simply lying, putting their own short-term greed for bribes from the fossil fuel industry, over the long-term needs of the species, the planet, and even their own children. Many of them also holocaust deniers or other types of extreme right wingers, and want to encourage people to smoke, also to make money for themselves. This is the consensus, supported by 99.9% of climate scientists.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to participate in the debate, such as the schedule for introducing global governance or phasing out fossil fuels, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Neither are they entitled to stand in the way of others, or society, making the necessary changes. This is the consensus, supported by 99.9% of climate scientists.

publius_lxxii · 1 month

It goes both ways.

Obesity adds to climate change http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/20/obesity-climate-change
Climate change adds to obesity http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/15/scientists-link-carbon-dioxide-obesity_n_1347144.html?ref=uk

Truly a vicious circle.

publius_lxxii · 1 month

Other than thermometers, there is lots of independence evidence for rising temperatures such as computer models.

Or if you prefer field observations, many negative effects of climate change have been observed. Just in the last few days for example, the negative effects of climate change on seal pups, and on human obesity rates, have been reported.

publius_lxxii · 1 month

Denialists love to complain about adjustments to historic temperature records, but it would be criminally wrong not to adjust them.

The fact is that science and technology have been continuously improving for the last few decades. We know more about future and past temperatures than ever before. And it would be simply incorrect not to adjust past records to match current knowledge about temperature trends. 99% of climate scientists agree the Earth is warming. Even many so-called "skeptics" agree on that. So let's have temperature records that reflect these facts.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

Absolutely.

However, we're unlikely to be lucky enough for the entire human species to be wiped out at a stroke.

If there is some kind of huge natural or manmade disaster, it's more likely than while many people will die, but others will survive, and gradually begin to rebuild technology, procreate, and spread across the world again in an uncontrolled fashion.

So the realistic option is not to hope for some magic result of human extinction, but instead set up a stable and sustainable (i.e. permanent) new society, that is in tune with the environment, and can continue onwards indefinitely into the future.

AlyssaMoore · 1 month

The fact that he was able to derive such an important result from such limited data is a testament to Phil Jones's abilities. See deniers, this is what real climate scientists are capable of!

Seele · 1 month

The points are that

Religious institutions are stable and long-lasting.
People obey religious instructions without question and are happy to do so.
We don't have to take the specific values and doctrines of Catholicism or Hinduism or any current religion, but we can instead use our environmental values and doctrines.

This will result is an extremely stable social system, with which people are happy to confirm, that is compliant with environmental ethics.

Moreover, if you look at history, the main reason why certain religious systems go into decline is outside influences, such as competing religions coming from another region, or invasions, etc. However, there will be no outside in our system, since we shall control the world - and hence our system will be super-stable.

Seele · 1 month

No the people will be happy. We can, for example, establish a religious-type system among the lower strata which teaches them to be satisfied with their position in life. This will also help maintain long-term stability. Think how long for example the Catholic Church, or the Jewish or Hindu religions have lasted.

Moreover our solution is not communism. Communism aims to eventually establish a classless and stateless society. Our aim is to establish a permanent state and permanent class system, which can maintain themselves, and the Earth's ecological system, indefinitely into the future.

Seele · 1 month

There clearly are vastly too many people, so a significant reduction in population is obviously necessary.

But it needs to go beyond that. The ecological footprint per person needs also to be vastly reduced.

This can easily be achieved by having most people living simple and happy lives, freed from consumerism, and in harmony with nature, as either hunter-gatherers, and when it's unavoidable, in subsistence agriculture. I say subsistence, but the agricultural sector will actually need to produce a small per capita surplus to feed the upper strata of society.

Obviously we wouldn't want to totally sacrifice the advantages of a modern advanced society, so middle layer of the pyramid (imagine an extremely flattened pyramid which is very much wider in the lower layers than at the top) can produce the necessary manufactured goods and services, etc.

Finally, at the apex, we need those who have been educated and trained for leadership.

Once established, this system could be infinitely sustainable. For example, if we had a few million (as opposed to billions) in the upper technological strata, our CO2 emissions will be much lower, manageable in fact, and it will be a very long time before we run out of non-renewable resources, especially with proper recycling programs, etc.

buckyVanBuren · 1 month

So what? A few right wing lunatics will bleat on about the UN and world government conspiracies, but nobody's listening and nobody cares,

Meanwhile, we'll keep building the new post-capitalist socio-economic system that is going to make your ideas obsolete.

butch123 · 1 month

Click his name and read his review of American Fascists.

buckyVanBuren · 1 month

Foolish deniers, you're entitled to your own opinions and to participate in the debate, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The research has been done. It is proven established mainstream science, backed by the consensus of climate scientists, that a new framework of global governance is needed. Those are the undeniable scientific facts that can not be disputed.

It is time for you guys to accept the science and the scientific facts, move on, and participate in an honest debate. Consider this an invitation. Please accept!

We want your input!

There's lots of things that we can debate about, you entitled to an opinion, and you are entitled to participate in that debate.

For example, how many people should be on governing body? Where should it be located? What tax raising powers should have? On what date should it assume control of various national budgets, taxes, and militaries?

butch123 · 1 month

What scumbaggery?

Some scientists have adopted slightly more robust tactics, after years of attacks from fossil fuel funded "skeptics".

If somebody keeps punching you in the face, it's not a crime to start blocking their blows.

butch123 · 1 month

I asked, with the most honest of intentions, readers of the Guardian environment section to provide me with the solid and irrefutable studies that demonstrated AGW and a need for me to change the way I lived.

Are you 100% sure you don't mean: "I received a stipend from a fossil fuel company to attack the readers of the Guardian environment section. They gave me solid and irrefutable payments that demonstrated corruption and a need to keep the oil money flowing?"

butch123 · 2 months

The review author is a Christian evangelical who has argued in favor of discussions with fascists.

butch123 · 2 months

It's pretty sad to see deniers using proxies and vote-buying to cheat a result they want.

greenmarauder

TROPHY CASE

greenmarauder

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login