PDA

View Full Version : Environmentalists' Wild Predictions


MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 12:58 AM
Walter Williams had a really good piece in the paper today. I'm sure this will spark some debate with our resident tree huggers. :lol: Enjoy!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/EnvironmentalistsWildPredictions.htm

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.


Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 01:05 AM
And the greenie weenies wonder why so many people don't take them seriously. :lol:

SilentScope001
05-09-2008, 01:11 AM
All that ethos that could have came from that article was trashed when I read that it came from an ECONOMIST professor. That ruined it. I do not doubt that he is not dumb when studying the economy, but climate change is a whole different subject, and you need ethos to convince people in 'the real world', for crying out loud.

What if I had a Ecology Professor go and rant about how the Patriot Act will defend America (without talking about how the Patriot Act will save endangered species)? Or if we have a History Professor go and discuss about the problems of present-day sewers (without using any historical arguments about the sewers in the past)? That's just wrong. You are very skilled in only one area of study, but that doesn't mean you should start talking about every other area of study.

I mean, he's an ECONOMIST! He should do a risk-benieft study instead of this article. Talk about how much it would cost, and the bad effects it would have on the economy. Imply prehaps global warming may not happen at all, and then the message is clear: It is too expensive to spend money to defend against a threat that may or may not exist.

And the whole article was just full of quotes. Quotes can be cherry-picked to support whatever cause you want. Just because you predict doomsday wrong a hundred times does not mean that the 101st Predicition is wrong.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 01:22 AM
No, just that the 101st won't be seen as any more valid than the 100 previous failed claims, robbing that person of his "ethos" (or perhaps demonstrating his complete lack thereof). The lack of an educational credential doesn't make someone's analysis off base.

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 01:27 AM
The lack of an educational credential doesn't make someone's analysis off base.


So true! Makes me wonder what SilentScope001's educational credential is though. Is he an "expert" according to his degree or lack thereof? :D

Tommycat
05-09-2008, 01:37 AM
...greenie weenies...
I am SO using that from now on.

Yeah it's so hard to take the envirowhackos seriously when they keep getting it so wrong so many times. It's almost like someone predicting the stock market and each time getting it wrong telling you "But this time I'm RIGHT!" Even if it is right(which I doubt), we're taking a rather large gamble on something that has not been correctly guessed so many times.

How about if you're so sure about it. YOU pay for it. Or at least if you are wrong, you pay everyone else back. Pay back the billions we've spent on your research. Pay back the trillions in lost revenue.

Again, don't get me wrong, I don't think we should trash the world. Don't litter. Don't dump chemicals everywhere. but lets not get all in an uproar trying to prevent global warming. Hey maybe it was our reactions to the 70's global ice age threat that caused global warming :D . Perhaps we tend to overreact to the news.

Arcesious
05-09-2008, 01:37 AM
Okay, now my views o Global warming have definitly changed... If anything, it's only a phase in the Earth's weather system... Ice Age, warming age/volcanic age, and then a nuetral age, and then all over again...

Jae Onasi
05-09-2008, 02:13 AM
Well, I don't know if global warming or cooling is real or just a normal climatic change. I do know, however, that my lower mpg minivan is costing me more money at the pump. I know that pouring mercury and assorted other chemicals into our fresh water supplies (lakes, rivers) is very bad for us and the creatures around us. I know that because of rainforest destruction in countries such as Brazil, we'll likely lose rare species of plants and animals that might otherwise be of great benefit to humanity.

Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.

Samuel Dravis
05-09-2008, 02:15 AM
So true! Makes me wonder what SilentScope001's educational credential is though. Is he an "expert" according to his degree or lack thereof? :DHe wasn't claiming to be an expert. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of a person who 1) is not (officially) trained in the subject, and 2) the subject of discussion is widely contentious. While a lack of such training doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean that they may not be fully aware of the subject. I both agree with Silentscope and think it's wise to take this kind of opinion with a slightly larger grain of salt than is done with someone who is actually in the field they're talking about.

Corinthian
05-09-2008, 02:44 AM
I agree with the article completely. In fact, it makes me want to laugh. Why should we believe these Doomsayers? Their fathers were saying thirty years ago that we were freezing, now things are heating up? Make up your mind already.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 02:54 AM
He wasn't claiming to be an expert. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of a person who 1) is not (officially) trained in the subject, and 2) the subject of discussion is widely contentious. While a lack of such training doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean that they may not be fully aware of the subject. I both agree with Silentscope and think it's wise to take this kind of opinion with a slightly larger grain of salt than is done with someone who is actually in the field they're talking about.


The only problem is that many people acquire a lot of information outside of their "accredited" field over the course of a lifetime. Do we discount your opinion or position on a certain subject just b/c you don't have a degree in that field? Given how divisive many of the opinions are of people within in a field, just how much credence should we give any one of them? And based on what (especially if we aren't accredited ourselves, such that our pov on relevance is rendered irrelevant)? It's a sort of dangerous paradigm you set up where we "defer to the (self-proclaimed) experts". The world is full of many learned fools.

Samuel Dravis
05-09-2008, 03:37 AM
The only problem is that many people acquire a lot of information outside of their "accredited" field over the course of a lifetime. Do we discount your opinion or position on a certain subject just b/c you don't have a degree in that field? Given how divisive many of the opinions are of people within in a field, just how much credence should we give any one of them? And based on what (especially if we aren't accredited ourselves, such that our pov on relevance is rendered irrelevant)? It's a sort of dangerous paradigm you set up where we "defer to the (self-proclaimed) experts". The world is full of many learned fools.I certainly don't discount that people can (and do) learn quite a lot about other fields and can be competent in them even though they don't have a degree. I just think it is reasonable to be more skeptical of those without a degree than with one. It's not about trusting the "self-proclaimed experts" - a degree is not usually self-proclaimed - but about who is most likely to have a good view of the subject, given that we're not trained in it ourselves. The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, there are a lot of people on both sides saying a lot of things, mostly contradictory.

How are people supposed to distinguish the good ideas from the bad? I would start by weeding out most of the crazies by dropping those without a degree (if a person has the right idea and doesn't have a degree, I am virtually certain that idea will also be held by someone with a degree). After that, you might be able to find some arguments for both sides and you can evaluate those.

I've personally taken an environmental science course just for this purpose. What I got from that course is a general amazement that we live in such a great time -- and a general worry that we might help screw it up. Polluting any amount isn't and won't ever be good, but it may be a necessary evil. I don't agree with the wackos that say the world is going to end in a great cataclysm, because it probably won't. What I will say is that, if the purpose of this article is to make people feel good about how they're not affecting their environment, then I believe the motives of the author are suspect. As Jae said: Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.Anything that is an attempt to distract us from what we're doing is not going to win points from me, even if it, strictly speaking, is factually correct. For example, if someone uses the fact "None of the doomsday scenarios have come about yet even though they've been predicted." in order to forward the general idea: "...so no need to be concerned about those wacky scientists, lol." - a conclusion which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not follow.

YMMV. :D

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 03:56 AM
I certainly don't discount that people can (and do) learn quite a lot about other fields and can be competent in them even though they don't have a degree. I just think it is reasonable to be more skeptical of those without a degree than with one. It's not about trusting the "self-proclaimed experts" - a degree is not usually self-proclaimed - but about who is most likely to have a good view of the subject, given that we're not trained in it ourselves. The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, there are a lot of people on both sides saying a lot of things, mostly contradictory.

I don't necessarily disagree, though I think I'd be only slighty less skeptical of those w/o than those with w/o knowing anything about the credentialed so-called expert (self-proclaimed was a rather poor choice, but was too lazy to change it).


How are people supposed to distinguish the good ideas from the bad? I would start by weeding out most of the crazies by dropping those without a degree (if a person has the right idea and doesn't have a degree, I am virtually certain that idea will also be held by someone with a degree). After that, you might be able to find some arguments for both sides and you can evaluate those.

Only caveat I'd add here is that you research who it is that's providing you with your education.


I've personally taken an environmental science course just for this purpose. What I got from that course is a general amazement that we live in such a great time -- and a general worry that we might help screw it up. Polluting any amount isn't and won't ever be good, but it may be a necessary evil. I don't agree with the wackos that say the world is going to end in a great cataclysm, because it probably won't. What I will say is that, if the purpose of this article is to make people feel good about how they're not affecting their environment, then I believe the motives of the author are suspect. As Jae said: Anything that is an attempt to distract us from what we're doing is not going to win points from me, even if it, strictly speaking, is factually correct. For example, if someone uses the fact "None of the doomsday scenarios have come about yet even though they've been predicted." in order to forward the general idea: "...so no need to be concerned about those wacky scientists, lol." - a conclusion which, I'm sure you'll agree, does not follow.

Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that their consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable. I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can. In the case of the doomsayers, though, it would not be unfair to dismiss them altogether due to an extremely poor track record (not merely the number of "misses", but the nature of their claims as well). However, I guess even a broken clock is right at least 2x a day. :)




YMMV. :D

Your mouth, my WHAT?!? :D

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 04:12 AM
Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that there consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable. I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can.

And I don't believe that was Mr. Williams' intent either. I also would like to see proof to the contrary.

Nobody is saying "lets indiscriminately pollute" just because we should have no fear. What we should be on the lookout for is fear-mongering, of which many of the "greenie weenies" (I love it!) participate in. If they want to be taken seriously, they really need to brush up on the "Boy that cried WOLF."

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 04:30 AM
Don't forget Chicken Little. :)

Samuel Dravis
05-09-2008, 01:35 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, though I think I'd be only slighty less skeptical of those w/o than those with w/o knowing anything about the credentialed so-called expert (self-proclaimed was a rather poor choice, but was too lazy to change it).I think it's quite reasonable for you to make sure the ones you're trusting didn't get their credentials from a bad school (or a diploma mill :p).

In the case of the doomsayers, though, it would not be unfair to dismiss them altogether due to an extremely poor track record (not merely the number of "misses", but the nature of their claims as well). However, I guess even a broken clock is right at least 2x a day. :)Yes, I agree. This particular brand of doomsayers has apparently got a bit loose upstairs.

Only caveat I'd add here is that you research who it is that's providing you with your education.Good point.

I do agree with both of you, and others, who say that we shouldn't indiscriminately pollute the earth merely b/c we apparently can.Nobody is saying "lets indiscriminately pollute" just because we should have no fear.I'm glad you both agree with me on this then.

Fair enough. If you could prove that Mr. Williams is merely trying to assuage people's fears that their consumption lifestyle is having no effect at all, then that would be reasonable.And I don't believe that was Mr. Williams' intent either. I also would like to see proof to the contrary.I am not particularly interested in Mr. Williams' intent. What I meant to convey is that the method used by this (and other similar) articles does serve the general idea that we aren't doing much to the environment. For example,

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.Piling these natural greenhouse effects on top of ours doesn't make ours any better. The tone of the article seems to be that our contribution is fairly insignificant and not really worth talking about, at least in context of our radically changing the environment. Naturally I am not terribly pleased with this, because like you I am concerned with what we're actually doing, regardless of its particular effect on the entire atmosphere. While it's true that the world hasn't ended, we've still got acid rain. I think that fact should be recognized as well.

What we should be on the lookout for is fear-mongering, of which many of the "greenie weenies" (I love it!) participate in. If they want to be taken seriously, they really need to brush up on the "Boy that cried WOLF."Right, and that's an understandable position. A point here, though: I think that the opposite of crying wolf all the time is not "never cry wolf" but "only cry wolf when it's appropriate." Like you said, they should be more responsible in their claims, but we also need to remember to listen to them when the time comes. Like Totenkopf said, a broken clock is right twice a day -- and a broken atmosphere is not an acceptable way of figuring out if the doomsayers were right.

Your mouth, my WHAT?!? :D :D

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 02:26 PM
Piling these natural greenhouse effects on top of ours doesn't make ours any better. The tone of the article seems to be that our contribution is fairly insignificant and not really worth talking about, at least in context of our radically changing the environment. Naturally I am not terribly pleased with this, because like you I am concerned with what we're actually doing, regardless of its particular effect on the entire atmosphere. While it's true that the world hasn't ended, we've still got acid rain. I think that fact should be recognized as well.

I don't believe the intent of the article was to make our impact look "better," it simply puts things in perspective, nothing more. The fact still remains that our contribution is far less than what the doomsayers would have us believe.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 02:36 PM
Well, I don't know if global warming or cooling is real or just a normal climatic change. I do know, however, that my lower mpg minivan is costing me more money at the pump. I know that pouring mercury and assorted other chemicals into our fresh water supplies (lakes, rivers) is very bad for us and the creatures around us. I know that because of rainforest destruction in countries such as Brazil, we'll likely lose rare species of plants and animals that might otherwise be of great benefit to humanity.

Whether or not global warming is real, fouling the air we breath and water we drink is just plain bad for us.

QFT

Given that I have lost alot of faith with our eductional system, I have used a unique thing called 'common sense'. This very rare attribute, which most people seem to lack tells me all sorts of things.

e.g. Our government in its infinite wisdom some years ago decided after expert advice to bring in lots of tests for young children. Genuis psychologists years later said all this testing was bad for their children; I had always said that all this testing was both pointless and bad for kids; its common sense! Indeed it has always been my expierance that people who were happy and enjoyed their childhood are far more productive adults.

So common sense tells me that breathing in for example car fumes will kill you; it would follow that if a billion people are doing that every day will have an effect on the environment.

Common sense tells me, that even if the earths temperature is rising as a natural occurance, that most human endevours are still not good for us. In the history of our planet far worse has happened; and the planet will recover; however we could end up wiping ourselves out.

Common sense tells me this is bad for the environement; http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 03:19 PM
In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.


Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 03:26 PM
Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.

How an individual feels is irrelevant; I'd also far rather speak to the people of Burma who do not live in an MEDC, I would somewhat think the victims of Katrina have a better chance of survival and being looked after than Burma and the people of Burma have in general done alot less to contribute to the problems of the environment, than many of the victims of Katrina.

I feel sorry for the victims of Katrina; but they could by not acting contribute to greater calamities in the future, by not addressing problems; such as the ammount of plastics dumped into the ocean - something that will come back to haunt us.

Ray Jones
05-09-2008, 03:28 PM
Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today.Huh? What kind of argument is that against what jonathan7 said? That just because a hurricane can take our homes or do whatever to us, irresponsible pollution of our environment becomes harmless? Hm.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 03:34 PM
In short, and I will not mince my words here, as it needs to be this harsh, even if global warming isn't happening, humans are having a horrible and devistating impact on the earth.

Common sense says you don't make radical life changes just b/c you suspect something is a problem, but don't know the TRUE extent or even exactly how it's a problem in the first place. We've established that cleaning up after yourself is NOT a bad thing, even necessary. But the current group of greenie weenies keep foisting flawed study upon flawed study upon us, "playing on our fears" (to quote one of the charlatans waiting to fleece us while he continues to live the high life). Fact is, there is only so much wealth to go around, so you must use it judiciously. One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 03:39 PM
Common sense says you don't make radical life changes just b/c you suspect something is a problem, but don't know the TRUE extent or even exactly how it's a problem in the first place. We've established that cleaning up after yourself is NOT a bad thing, even necessary. But the current group of greenie weenies keep foisting flawed study upon flawed study upon us, "playing on our fears" (to quote one of the charlatans waiting to fleece us while he continues to live the high life). Fact is, there is only so much wealth to go around, so you must use it judiciously. One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.

I haven't bothered reading alot of studies by either the 'greenie weenies' or the 'greedy weenies' because both just produce polemics supporting their position.

In short; I think the greedy weenies are more dangerous as they want to be able to continue polluting indiscrimitably, they think money can buy you anything; money cannot buy you long term good health, money cannot buy back dead species and finally money cannot buy back damage to the environment.

You do however delude yourself if you don't think we need to take decisive action quickly; specific example - do you really think all that rubbish floating around in the ocean isn't going to have an effect? The plastic will be absorbed and slowly go up the food chain.

Common sense says we need to a) stop dumping crap in the ocean b) try and remove whats floating around in it and c) recycle everything we can.

mimartin
05-09-2008, 03:44 PM
Ask the people affected by Hurricane Katrina if they feel like a threat to the earth today. And that would prove what? You would get the same percentage as the national average that would say yes or no. Maybe slightly above, on the yes side, due to people along the coast knowing the effect man is having on the environment every time we go to eat seafood or walk along the beach.

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 03:45 PM
Huh? What kind of argument is that against what jonathan7 said? That just because a hurricane can take our homes or do whatever to us, irresponsible pollution of our environment becomes harmless? Hm.


It was a statement of how much power that our environment has over us. The idea that we can do much of any significance against our earth is quite,.... erm, what did jonathan7 call it?...extremely arrogant. But, again, we've already established in this thread that no one is authorizing free and wanton pollution. I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

Oh, and jonathan, it isn't the individuals that I was drawing your attention to, but the mass of people. BTW, thanks for bringing up Burma, that was a better example.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 03:53 PM
It was a statement of how much power that our environment has over us. The idea that we can do much of any significance against our earth is quite,.... erm, what did jonathan7 call it?...extremely arrogant. But, again, we've already established in this thread that no one is authorizing free and wanton pollution. I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

In earths long history it has suffered and recovered from far greater calamities, however a large percentage of species dyed out during those periods. We could end up in say 400 years time, killing our selves off - a rather ironic and perhaps fitting end. Is that a good enough perspective? Earths ability to recover is not in doubt.

Do you deny that many is slowly killing the bio-diversity of earth? We can affect the enviornment, or are you going to deny acid rain? Or what effect the nuclear age has? (Slight side note, it has always seemed to me that nuclear power was always the way to go in terms of emissions; the waste should be taken into the desert, and encassed in lead, glass and finally plastic).

Oh, and jonathan, it isn't the individuals that I was drawing your attention to, but the mass of people. BTW, thanks for bringing up Burma, that was a better example.

Individuals have a lot less in the way of effect on the environment, but you are bing naive if you don't think that 7 billion people have a massive effect on the environment.

The best step we could take is to replant many tree's as they are nature's natural way of dealing with 'green house gasses'. Also if you think the plastics in the ocean aren't going to have a massive and devisating impact, it will come back to bite you.

Burma was more recent ;)

Ray Jones
05-09-2008, 03:56 PM
Don't forget big epidemics of pest and pox, mainly caused by ourselves. Quite some time ago, but still.

One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.
While what you say is correct, the point is that the optimal degree of pollution *is* that of no pollution at all.


I'm just trying to put things into perspective.Hm. Strange perspective.

MdKnightR
05-09-2008, 04:21 PM
Earths ability to recover is not in doubt.

I see we are in agreement on this point. However, the enviro-nazis would have us believe it is permanent damage.


Do you deny that many is slowly killing the bio-diversity of earth? We can affect the enviornment, or are you going to deny acid rain? Or what effect the nuclear age has? (Slight side note, it has always seemed to me that nuclear power was always the way to go in terms of emissions; the waste should be taken into the desert, and encassed in lead, glass and finally plastic).

I never denied any of that. However, you must admit that we humans are not responsible for the vast majority of extinctions in the grand scope of time. I'm also pleased to see that you favor nuclear energy.



Individuals have a lot less in the way of effect on the environment, but you are bing naive if you don't think that 7 billion people have a massive effect on the environment.

And you are being naive if you think that individuals do less in the way of effect on the environment (or anything for that matter). Take the metaphor of a sheet of paper.....one is easy to tear by hand, but gather about 500 individuals, and its damn near impossible.

Also, I believe it to be naive that 7 billion people can pollute the environment more than one average volcanic explosion. Does that mean that we shouldn't clean up our own mess? Certainly not. What it means is that we can't expect to be held accountable for variables outside our control (global climate change). What people need to realize is that environmentalists don't give a damn about the planet. Its all about having control.

jonathan7
05-09-2008, 04:39 PM
I see we are in agreement on this point. However, the enviro-nazis would have us believe it is permanent damage.

Time is a healer, we are however damaging the environment and it will effect us.

I never denied any of that. However, you must admit that we humans are not responsible for the vast majority of extinctions in the grand scope of time. I'm also pleased to see that you favor nuclear energy.

Nuclear is the way to go, I'm hopefull fusion will be brought in, which I suspect it will be.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

In contrast to time, we have not caused many extinctions, however no other species has brought about the extinctions of multiple species.

And you are being naive if you think that individuals do less in the way of effect on the environment (or anything for that matter). Take the metaphor of a sheet of paper.....one is easy to tear by hand, but gather about 500 individuals, and its damn near impossible.

I don't see your point? An individual human has a limmited effect on an environment; many humans have a great effect on the enviornment.

Also, I believe it to be naive that 7 billion people can pollute the environment more than one average volcanic explosion. Does that mean that we shouldn't clean up our own mess? Certainly not. What it means is that we can't expect to be held accountable for variables outside our control (global climate change). What people need to realize is that environmentalists don't give a damn about the planet. Its all about having control.

I think 7 billion humans have a greater effect on the environment than 1 volcanic erruption (except for an extremley large erruption), I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.

Consider all the things humans do; burn fossil fuels, dump plastics, hunt species, eat, mass farm, consume resources etc.

I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement;

Its all about having control.

I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday. However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here; but do you?

nine.roses
05-09-2008, 05:41 PM
Am I wrong in noting that Walter Williams has just presented us with a gigantic straw man and an argumentum ad hominem?

I mean, England disappearing is amongst the more outlandish of predictions, but I don't think the idea was widely supported in the scientific community. It's when a great number of scientists who have done research into the matter agree that one needs to be worried. I wouldn't rate the majority of "greenie-weenie" scientists amongst this apparent "fear-mongering" group, in fact I am sure many have come to their conclusions entirely objectively; and without making a big fuss, unlike the few oddballs Williams has picked on.

This is the only part of Mr Williams's analysis which isn't non-sequitur to global warming:

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

I would like to ask: what research has he done that would indicate that his brief pick-and-mix of anti-global warming ideas are more valid than the rather more detailed and soundly structured conclusions of pro-global warming scientists who have dedicated a great deal of time on the subject? What, but for rhetorical devices, even merits us listening to his fallacies?

Oh, and am I right in thinking that Walter Williams is amongst the SUV driving "environment what?" class of right-wing Americans who just wants to continue his lifestyle of mass waste?

Jae Onasi
05-09-2008, 06:13 PM
OK, folks, calling each other naive and/or deluded is drifting into the flame-baiting category. Please refrain from that kind of thing.

Totenkopf
05-09-2008, 06:18 PM
In contrast to time, we have not caused many extinctions, however no other species has brought about the extinctions of multiple species.
A little hard to prove, given that if evolution is correct (not saying it's not, btw) life has been around for hundreds of millions of years unobserved by modern man.
I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.
Once again, based on what? 1 nuke (Little Boy and Fatman were merely firecrackers compared to what exists today) does not have the effect on the environment that a volcano does, less it be of sufficiently large size and placed on a target like a city.

I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement
I think this is an overstatement. It's pretty clear that he's talking about the more ardent envirowhackos. Just like not every animal lover wants to legally elevate animals to the exact same legal status as humans or every religious person wants to convert the world by the sword, not every enviromentalist wants to burn down housing developments, car dealerships or even want to kill people who don't agree with their agenda like ALF or ELF.

I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday. However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?
I'm curious as to what harm they are claiming. Everything people do in one place has a greater chance of affecting another part of the world now b/c of global interconnectivity and advances in technology in general. I see no point in dismantling the current system w/o effectively having something in place to replace it with to minimize disruptions. We're not going to stop breeding or retreat back to the cave to "heal the planet". I think it's been established that while some of us disagree with your overall assessment of things, that noone is saying that people should pollute indiscriminately (throwing plastics in the ocean being but one example). Just don't expect people to turn their lives completely upside down over speculative science like the global warming scare we're currently being subjected to.

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here......
No more than MdKnightR, apparently.
While what you say is correct, the point is that the optimal degree of pollution *is* that of no pollution at all.
Ah, but to expect perfecton from the imperfect is a form of insanity. :)
You have..." just presented us with an argumentum ad hominem", 9.roses.
Oh the sweet irony. :D

Oh, and am I right in thinking that Walter Williams is amongst the SUV driving "environment what?" class of right-wing Americans who just wants to continue his lifestyle of mass waste?

nine.roses
05-09-2008, 07:08 PM
Well, Totenkopf, you're entirely right. I apologise. I suppose in the grand scheme of things I can get away with that little assault on his character though, as I'm fortunate that I'm not basing my entire argument on global warming around it.

MdKnightR
05-10-2008, 01:46 AM
I don't see your point? An individual human has a limmited effect on an environment; many humans have a great effect on the enviornment.



The point I'm trying to make is that everyone contributes. Do you not agree?



I think 7 billion humans have a greater effect on the environment than 1 volcanic erruption (except for an extremley large erruption), I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.

I'd be curious to see facts that back up that assertion.




I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement;

By control, I mean that enviro-nazis are not too unlike evangelical Christians in their desire to tell you how to live. It wasn't meant to "dehumanize" anyone.



I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday.

Don't get me started about PETA. I'm a vegetarian, but not a militant one.


However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?

I believe I addressed this when I said that no one is advocating free and wanton pollution. By all means, if you make a mess, clean it up.

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here; but do you?


No more than you. ;)

jonathan7
05-14-2008, 09:31 AM
Sorry for slow reply, been quite busy over the last week, slowly trying to catch up with the backlog of posts in KC.

OK, folks, calling each other naive and/or deluded is drifting into the flame-baiting category. Please refrain from that kind of thing.

I apologise, it wasn't intended as a flame, and MdKnightR saying it to me, didn't offend me, I am however sorry if he, or anyone else was offended, and I won't say such things again. :)
It's far easier to put out one little flame than it is to put out a forest fire. Even if you two don't mind saying that to each other, if it's allowed here, others will also do it, and it'll quickly get out of control. --Jae

First on axe grinding;

No more than you. ;)

Personally I don't think I have an axe to grind, though I do think all nations do need to review environmental policy. If you realy think humans don't have a big effect on where they live consider Easter Island, and how the humans killed themselves off by cutting down all the tree's... Here's what I think;

Firstly I think Nuclear power is the way to go in terms of energy, Solar energy and Fusion should continued to be researched, I see little point in other forms of green energy as I don't think they will generate sufficient ammounts of energy. Solar is the exception given that all living things get there energy from it, and obsiously fusion is taking that one step closer to the orginiator.

Tree's, they are natures air cleaning filter, and we have been and are cutting alot down, they absorb alot of nasty things in the atmopshere. We should offer countries such as Brazil financial insentives not to cut down tree's. We should also have extensive replanting schemes.

The Sea, perhaps the thing most polluted by us, I would suggest we stop dumping things in it, and try to deal with unnatural wastes we have put in it such as plastic. Responsible fishing is also required.

Emissions, now I'm not a greenie, however I do think people need to think about car use

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone contributes. Do you not agree?

I agree, and all of us do have quite a large effect.

I'd be curious to see facts that back up that assertion.

In terms of Nukes, radioactivity, the other is at least to me common sense.


Don't get me started about PETA. I'm a vegetarian, but not a militant one.

lol, I have no problems with veggies, but PETA are a bunch of idiots.

by control, I mean that enviro-nazis are not too unlike evangelical Christians in their desire to tell you how to live. It wasn't meant to "dehumanize" anyone.

Firstly as a Christian I would remark, it is illogical to think a non-Christian should behave to 'Christian standards' given, non-Christians don't believe what Christians believe.

The same is somewhat applicable to the environment, though we do need to act responsily with earth, it is a pretty unique place in the universe, and if people want to freely want and pollute they should not be allowed to do so.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading :)