« Anti-abortion movement responsible for Tiller's death | Main | Smart people groupthink »

June 03, 2009

Comments

Deep ecology is, of course, total nonsense unless you're religious. Either humans are an intrinsic part of the earth's ecology created by natural forces over time or we were introduced here by some external power. Deep ecologists apparently seem to think the latter statement is true, but they don't want to address who or what this power is. Deep ecologists are really no different from creationists in denying man's intrinsic connection to the natural world.

That's George Dvorsky :) I pretty much always agree with him, but my favorite bit from that particular post is:

"One can be an environmentalist and a humanist. The key is to make this planet habitable, sustainable and humane. It is this last crucial point that the Gainists and deep ecologists have failed to grasp, and in so doing, have come to represent a dangerous and misguided ideology."

Just a note - I am not sure if it was just a spelling error but it seems to me that "Gaianism" makes more sense than "Gainism."

[HS: Definitely a spelling error. I think. I blame the Gaianists for making their religion so unintuitive to spell.]

Shouldn't it be Gaianism and Gaianists, not Gainism and Gainists?

Written, Gainism looks like some sort of body building philosophy and spoken it would sound like it could be a feminist philosophy (Gynism). So I think that adding that extra "a" would be important in making it clear what you are refering to.

Dvorsky uses both spellings in his post, so I suspect that Gainism and Gainists are typos.

Look, there are people out there who believe all sorts of mumbo jumbo about the environment and the Earth and all that. No question. But you try to lump those people in with the rest of the world who thinks that anthropogenic global warming isn't just some huge conspiracy theory.

In reality, you're the crank here, not the Gaists. They happen to be right on this issue.

"In reality, you're the crank here, not the Gaists. They happen to be right on this issue."

Like Al Gore! And AGW, Jewish Atheist? AGW? You didn't get the memo. The holy texts have been changed. The term is now "climate change."

Even if I were to grant you the existence of gaianism, hell even if SWPL take up protecting mother earth as some sort of pet project, that doesn't preclude that perhaps the science is there, that there is a connection between human activity and global temperatures.

Look, Sigma

HBD research marches forward:

Hunks get more sex, but there's a price to pay

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17244-hunks-get-more-sex-but-theres-a-price-to-pay.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Just add me to the list of conservatives who believe in anthropogenic global warming. If I weren't lazy I'd actually write up a long essay detailing every reason why the evidence does lean in that direction, but I doubt I'll ever get around to it.

I'd rather people be 'Gaianists' rather than materialistic/hyperconsuming capitalists who ravage the Earth like greedy locusts and eventually destroy it as a result.

I'm still unsure about global warming. The scientific community lost a lot of credibility with me during the whole Larry Summers and James Watson affairs. I realized they were restricted by political leanings and PC thought police.

I've studied the issue very carefully and satisfied myself that "global warming" (as promoted by the likes of Al Gore) is a hoax.

Part of the problem is that the phrase "global warming" is a bit ambiguous. There is little dispute that surface temperatures have increased over the last 50 years or so, just as they decreased during the Little Ice Age. Nor is there much dispute that CO2 emissions have the potential to raise surface temperatures.

However, the alarmists make an additional claim, which is that mildly increased surface temperatures will result in greater levels of water vapor, which will raise temperatures further, and so on, resulting in a large temperature increase from increased CO2 levels.

This is "water vapor feedback," and if you don't understand this concept, you really have no business opining on the whole global warming dispute.

There is shockingly little evidence supporting the water vapor feedback hypothesis.

Anyway, I laid out my case on my blog:

brazil84.wordpress.com

Another good place to look is here:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

I the science is so strong in favor of AGW (it isn't), then why have the warmists lost every single debate before college audiences that has been held.

Rob, if you're going to use winning debates before college audiences as a standard than you're telling me that AGW is probably true.

"I'd rather people be 'Gaianists' rather than materialistic/hyperconsuming capitalists who ravage the Earth like greedy locusts and eventually destroy it as a result."

That you, Laurie David?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pmeister/2009/06/03/global-warming-activist-laurie-david-fined-for-wetlands-violations-oh-never-mind/

"Rob, if you're going to use winning debates before college audiences as a standard than you're telling me that AGW is probably true."

Assuming people show up, of course...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/al-gore-turns-down-debate_n_172371.html

@Peter A.

Who would you rather trust to judge AGW, an audience of college students who showed up for a debate, or MSM journalists?

If you say you would prefer scientists to judge, then AGW fails there, too, as over 31,0000 scientists have expressed doubts about it as opposed to the handful of scientists who are convinced. (The 2500 IPCC reviewers consisted of mainly NON-scientists, and only a handful of climate scientists.)

Knowing the propensity of the Left to lie about everything, I'm surprized you would even believe anything a Leftist scientist (like Hansen) says at all.

"Knowing the propensity of the Left to lie about everything, I'm surprized you would even believe anything a Leftist scientist (like Hansen) says at all."

Better watch out, you could end up in jail for talking like that!

If you say you would prefer scientists to judge, then AGW fails there, too, as over 31,0000 scientists have expressed doubts about it as opposed to the handful of scientists who are convinced.

LOL. You're either the dumbest person here or you're just spreading propaganda. Do you really believe that more scientists doubt AGW than are convinced? Really?

@JewishAtheist

That you don't know that 31,0000+ scientists signed a document expressing doubt about AGW shows you are perhaps the most IGNORANT person here.

Show me some stats to prove me wrong.

Speaking of Gainism in the news, has anyone seen Mike Judge's new show "The Goode Family" on ABC? It isn't roll on the floor funny but it is a very clever look at a Gainist type family. I bet Mike Judge has read "Stuff White People Like".

Rob:

31,000 cards may have been sent in to that website. Whoopee.

But every survey ever taken of scientists shows that the majority are onboard. Just do a freakin' google search.

Doesn't it tell you something that your side points to a petition while the other points to actual, carefully-constructed, statistically significant surveys?

Rob,

My point was if you base your life on who college audiences like as debate winners we'd all be living under Communism, McGovern would have been President, we'd have LSD in the water supply and every black family in American would be getting a reparation check on the first of the month. Why on earth would you think that's a point in your favor?

Here is Jewish Atheist arguing about global warming again. But I remember reading a comment by him some time ago, something like, "I don't give a fuck about Gaia." If anyone cares to search for it, I'm sure they could find it. And like I always say, I'll take AGW/climate change or whatever the lefty crisis du jour is seriously when Al Gore and Laurie David take is seriously.

I don't care about "Gaia," it's true. I don't see how that contradicts the assumption that what all the scientists are saying about the environment is true. I don't care about Gaia, because it's an object, but I do care about people, and a lot of people (and economies) are going to be really screwed by global warming. (Sea level rise, severe weather like hurricanes, possible famines, etc.)

JA, you need to hang out on this site more and you'd be a lot less convinced of the truth of AGW:

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Posted by: JewishAtheist | June 04, 2009 at 03:56 PM

It is free country, you're allowed to be wrong. You're also allowed to let yourself be rolled by the likes of those I mentioned several times. If you want to let a guy who has logged more miles in a Gulfstream than anyone else I can think of, who refuses to debate a scientist who should easily be beat into the ground in an open debate by the sheer unassailable might of AGW data and who lights his Belle Meade mansion up like a Christmas tree tell you that global warming is a massive dire, immediate threat to the earth and people, go ahead. You're allowed to be a gullible fool.

Physicists have known since the 19th century that human carbon etc. missions would eventually impact the global climate.

I first read about it in the mid-80s in James Trefil’s charming book A Scientist at the Seashore (he is a physicist, a professor at George Mason University, has dedicated himself to narrowing the gap between the science and the public awareness, and is very mainstream),

Denying human caused climate change isn't a litmus test for being right wing, it's a litmus test for being a total moron.

The discussion about Gaiaism here is on such an extraordinarily low level that James Lovelock is never even mentioned. I read his Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth when it came out in the late 1970s.
Trefil is a conservative physicist and James Lovelock (who is in fact a real scientist) has been stigmatized as a “radical ecologist” (whatever that means), both share a sense of wonder at the sheer improbability of the earth's environment, so hospitable to life, existing in the first place, and its incredible fragility.

They Gaia hypothesis, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the deep ecology, nor with human beings per se.
It is instead a compelling hypothesis which attempts to explain the extraordinary level of equilibrium obtained by Earth's climate system.

This equilibrium is, unsurprisingly, NOT entirely impervious to human intervention.

The hypothesis that burning billions of tons of carbon fuel would have an impact on the climate system is the humdrum, conventional, conservative wisdom shared by physicists since the 19th century.

The notion that it would have no such effect is incredibly bizarre.

Do you people ever actually read anything – I mean aside from blogs?????


Concerning AGW, the best post on the subject that I've seen was written by Steve Dutch:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

Of course, that doesn't at all change the fact that Gaianism as a religion is silly and harmful.

The comments to this entry are closed.