Global Warming

[Marcellus]

I was just sent this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html?ex=1217044800&en=053141bacb79e43c&ei=5070&emc=eta1

If one has not been following the issue or Gore's involvement, this
article briefly relays the type of change and urgency in order to
avoid terrible consequences. I know this environmental issue is often
thought of as political, but it is also very much and ethical and
philosophical issue. We as a species are knowingly destroying our
only habitat (the planet) and (according to many) dooming future
generations. If this does happen, what will the effects include?
Will we be living the film Waterworld? Personally, I think a remnant
of humans will survive, but how will they live afterwards? Right now,
people are focusing on what we believe to be normal life: school,
work, love, starting a family, boosting the population. Let's say in
30 years that is all gone. What then? What if we involved in this
discussion board are among the remnant? How will we live? I do not
believe civilization will be permanently destroyed. Perhaps we will
start out, some as wandering thugs, some as squatters, others trying
to pull people together to create a reality like the one that was just
lost. Is there a better way to live? Is that even a valid question?
Can one really say it is good or bad that the majority of the world
will be destroyed?

Enough questions. Thoughts?

[Josh]

Who knows what is bad or good?

Well, humanity is going to be wiped out eventually. No idea how it's
going to come, but unless we hop to a parallel universe, evolve beyond
our bodies or something, we'll be wiped out. This environmental stuff
is something I agree with, strongly. But at the same time, I always
ask myself, even if we ruined the galaxy, the known universe, what
would be the difference? The only difference is the lost life and even
that is negligible within the infinity of the universe. However, since
that is our own life, the only life we may ever know (I mean all of
Earth) then isn't it important for us to protect ourselves considering
we can't rely on anything else? In the end, the end of the world comes
on the blade of ignorance. People want to live as they've lived
previously, or more comfortable. Very few are willing to actively give
up enough to change anything. Because of this, I think society may be
lost relatively soon, within the next 1000 years. Maybe 10,000. I
don't know. We shall see.

Your over population comment reminded me of a page from
Transmetropolitan 4. In it, they have this shot of a "Pro-Lifer
opening his adoption store" and the guy is all scared, holding a gun
with a lot of graffiti from pro-abortionists heckling him for over-
populating. I thought it was funny and that you would like it. I'll
photograph it when I get my camera for you.

On Jul 19, 6:15 pm, Marcellus <marcellus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just sent this article:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html?ex=121704480...

[Marcellus]

Just heard an interesting appraisal of the situation in a movie last
night (28 Days Later):

Humanity has only been around for a blink of an eye if one looks at
the entire existence of the universe, so even if our race is wiped
out, it would make things more normal.

[Josh]

Yeah, exactly like oil usage. It's all going by in a flash of smoke.
Ever read that Asimov story about reversing entropy? I think you
should check it out. I think it's called "The Final Question" or
something. Lemme see what I can find...

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

There you go. Read!
Gassho

[Jeremy Deadslayer]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/index.htm A breakdown of a pretty interesting sounding documentary on environmentalism. It's found on the blog space of this rightwing nutter but the points of the documentary itself are still valid. --- On Sun, 7/20/08, Josh <jac...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Josh]

Haven't watched it, but based on the break down you sent, it's already
self conflicting. In point one it states "greens" love third world, un/
under-developed nations. Point two says "greens" are fielding a racist
effort to reduce population in third world, un/under-developed
nations. Say what now? Which one is it?

Point three says the "greens" are anti-science, but everywhere I've
heard, particularily the Kyoto agreement which is the largest
international "green" agreement in the world, point to scientific
development as a solution to 'bad' industry. Or rather, harmful
industries. From the synopsis, it sounds like he was just talking to a
circle of extreme hippie druggies or something.

On Jul 25, 3:03 am, Jeremy Deadslayer <t4lleyr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/index.htm
> A breakdown of a pretty interesting sounding documentary on environmentalism. It's found on the blog space of this rightwing nutter but the points of the documentary itself are still valid.
>

> --- On Sun, 7/20/08, Josh <jacr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jeremy Deadslayer]

Just because the accusations are conflicting does not mean they aren't true. I think it's likely that a lot of people have contradicting beliefs and aren't aware of it.   On the Kyoto Protocol, I've got a whole different link on Global Warming but it's a streaming video. Basically it provides a lot of evidence for the theory that the climate change isn't being created by humans and that anyone who says otherwise is personally attacked by the scientifc community.

--- On Thu, 7/24/08, Josh <jac...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Laurie Cripe]

Actually, looking at the statements on the website, I don't think they're necessarily contradictory - just not very well fleshed out, but that's the point behind "here's an outline - watch the documentary."

 

Basically - according to guy-who-made-the-documentary - "Greens" love the pre-industrialized state, to the point where they would implement policy to keep nations in that state.  Lower population, therefore lower pollution by "Green" mentality right?

 

But no I don't agree with what he's saying.  There is actually a whole lot of scientific rigour behind environmentalist claims.  It is true that greenhouse gases are produced naturally (by cows for instance), and humans only provide a certain fraction of the "pollution" taking place.  However, think about nature in any context - in the larger scheme of things, it's always self-balancing.  This can be seen in smaller demonstrations such as the balancing of species when areas become over- or under-populated, which typically occurs unless a new species is introduced to an area or human poaching becomes a factor.  It can be seen in larger demonstrations such as the recovery of the planet from the ("theoretical") asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.  So if you add human pollution to the balanced equation, and remove the methods for the system to balance itself (such as dense rainforest areas naturally converting the gases in the air), you're left with an extremely unbalanced equation that continues to generate greater and greater negative results (or "lower and lower," whichever way you want to look at it.)  Of course, we know an Ice Age happened without human involvement - and scientists agree it was likely an outside factor, hence the theorized meteor.

 

What bothers me about the argument is the similarity to Creationist claims.  They like to repeatedly point out that the whole process of evolution is still marked as scientific theory and is therefore not factually proven.  Everything in science is theory.  Gravity is theory.  All scientists can do is take measurements, conducting experiments to attempt to obtain the most relevant and unbiased measurements possible, so this process basically results in theories founded on many, many measurements that have been made as precise as possible.  So there will always be the chance that what we call "gravity" is simply some outside, universal figure arbitrarily choosing to bestow this amount of force on every object on our planet, and maybe tomorrow he could change his mind and make every object, regardless of the previous mass, weigh 2000 pounds, or nothing at all.  All we can do is make our judgments based on measurements.  (This is also why I don't believe that science can ever disprove God either.)  But, of course, as you can probably see, it would be mostly ridiculous to forever leave things like gravity completely open-ended with the judgment that "we just can't say."  Yes, we can "say."  Using everything we have learned in our millennia on this planet, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to accept the theory of gravity without the page of fine print at the bottom.  And it is because of the scientific rigour put into prevailing theories that it is so hard for a scientist to introduce a new theory (like greenhouse gases, for instance) or change or disprove an old theory.  Peer criticism is what necessitates the robustness of prevailing scientific theory - and this documentary guy conveniently forgets the ENORMOUS amounts (decades!) of criticism these theories precipitated.  As do creationists with evolution.  They like to paint the picture that they are being attacked for bold, challenging beliefs and quietly leave out the bit of truth that they are, in fact, only clinging to the old and obsolete.  It doesn't take so much boldness to do that.  It was quite easy for people to keep believing the universe revolved around the earth - and shifting that belief did not even place extra responsibilities on their shoulders like accepting the theory behind global warming might do.

 

There's my two cents and plus some - peer critique away.  I will probably not respond since all of this is mostly a way for me to put off my fucking business plan for 20 more minutes anyways.  Plus I also don't have many more "cents" to add after that.

 

[Laurie Cripe]

Actually, I have one more cent to add.  I realize this group is mostly about exploring that fine print below the things most humans just blindly accept from the media, their families growing up, their preacher in the pulpit, etc.  I applaud that.  I just think it's an unreasonable measure to take when discussing scientific theory since the whole act of discussing scientific theory requires every person involved to begin from the basis of a common, measurable world, at least for the purposes of the discussion.  Luckily, we can also have other, separate discussions to do whatever we like with the fine print. 

 

[Laurie Cripe]

Also I would like to add the theory that I recently heard from a co-worker which is very dependent on fine-print-observing but also very interesting.  Unfortunately it requires several discussions beforehand to fill in the details of the Sumerian theory of development in which our planet simply began as an experiment and abundant source of, well, dumb laborers.  (You know the zombie that the weird scientist-doctor was trying to domesticate in the third Resident Evil?  We're something like that.)  In this theory, there is a comet that destroyed all but strange remnants of the culture of outside beings who, as I understand it, left their experimental laborers to fend for themselves when this comet smacked into a now-non-existent planet in our solar system and bungled everything up.  The comet is coming back again, precipitating all the weird weather such as El Nino, Hurricane Katrina, the increasing number of catastrophic earthquakes and typhoons, and the snow in Corpus Christi on Christmas Day.  Some world leaders know about the comet.  There is only so much room in the bunkers.  "Global warming" is a nice distraction for the masses.

 

As I said, rooted very heavily in the fine print of life.  But also interesting.

 

[Justin]

Man, I hate environmentalists. It's a good thing we'll all be dead and gone by the time any of this has any real impact on our lives.

--
Regards,
Justin

[Josh]

That's assumption Judsin. Just because you don't like them doesn't
mean they aren't "right". Of course that works both ways. Anyways,
please offer some input, such as a critical analysis of
environmentalists and why you don't like them, next time.

Josh

On Jul 28, 2:14 pm, Justin <drkt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Man, I hate environmentalists. It's a good thing we'll all be dead and gone
> by the time any of this has any real impact on our lives.
>

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Jeremy Deadslayer <t4lleyr...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just because the accusations are conflicting does not mean they aren't
> > true. I think it's likely that a lot of people have contradicting beliefs
> > and aren't aware of it.
>
> > On the Kyoto Protocol, I've got a whole different link on Global Warming
> > but it's a streaming video. Basically it provides a lot of evidence for the
> > theory that the climate change isn't being created by humans and that anyone
> > who says otherwise is personally attacked by the scientifc community.
>

[Josh]

And I love you too, Judsin.

On Jul 28, 2:14 pm, Justin <drkt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Man, I hate environmentalists. It's a good thing we'll all be dead and gone
> by the time any of this has any real impact on our lives.
>

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Jeremy Deadslayer <t4lleyr...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just because the accusations are conflicting does not mean they aren't
> > true. I think it's likely that a lot of people have contradicting beliefs
> > and aren't aware of it.
>
> > On the Kyoto Protocol, I've got a whole different link on Global Warming
> > but it's a streaming video. Basically it provides a lot of evidence for the
> > theory that the climate change isn't being created by humans and that anyone
> > who says otherwise is personally attacked by the scientifc community.
>

[Laurie Cripe]

So I happened to come across this article (included at the bottom) just a little after reading the other comments and everything - it's a piece from a TIME article last week.  I just thought it was interesting that there are already effects of global warming and our human intervention that are measurable and observable by any ordinary person.  It doesn't require fancy equipment and scientific training to feel a jellyfish sting.  I think it's also evidence that the effects of our actions extend much further than we can ever guess, even to the little details of the tourist industry in Corsica.

 

As for the original question on this thread which I thought was very interesting:

I think ethics and morality are very difficult topics for discussion.  Most people base their ethics solely on their idea of a God and their promise for reward and punishment in the afterlife.  After all, any child knows it's bad to hit another person, but who can fully explain why?  Why is it bad to inflict pain?  Sometimes pain is good for you; does this mean doctors and dentists and physical therapists who poke and prod and torture are bad?  If it's based solely on intentions, Hitler had the best intentions for humanity.  Does this make him good?  I have never heard an irrefutable argument for the basis of morality, maybe because it is something each person must decide for himself in the end.  Many arguments exist for what the rules should be; I have heard none for why there are rules in the first place.  You can make vague statements about the overall good for mankind and such, but then you have arguments and statements like Judsin's: we're not going to be here for those effects anyways.  It is hard to make a person care about another's well-being.  As the discussion on this group started out with originally, ultimately we know no other reality but our own.  We will never truly see out of anyone's eyes but our own.  How do you convince people they need to care?  I don't know.

Although I like to think about the larger ethical and philosophical questions, I don't believe any of those questions will ever be solved.  No one will ever "know," and if they do, how could they possibly communicate those answers?  There is no collective answer that can serve for everyone; each must find his own.  So personally, I don't think we'll see massive deaths and catastrophes on the lines that some have drawn, not among the richer half of the world (which would include everybody in America and the developed nations).  I think there will be absolutely tragic results for under-developed nations that we are already beginning to see in the rise of catastrophic natural events - and as we have already seen, the richer countries will throw some money at them, a few people will volunteer to help rebuild, and we go on about our business while others try to pick up the pieces from lives that were already more difficult than I could ever imagine.  We will worry about things like jellyfish stings when we go on vacation - and whether A-Rod and Madonna are an item.  As much as you can say something is good or bad, each of our actions will have a direct effect on our world's environment, which will then affect the entire population.  Yes there are others contributing to the problem, but how does that mean you don't do what you can in your life where you are?  Although I am saying this as I eat from styrofoam trays and cups with plastic utensils every day as part of an invading force that is burning trillions of gallons of fuel in some of the most heavy, inefficient pieces of machinery ever created which only serve to take human lives.  How do I justify this....

I also just read this article (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826872,00.html) so I'm feeling extra shame for the uniform I'm wearing right now.  I'm putting our section's info papers in our commanding general's readbook tonight which he will open about 0830 tomorrow and read all the way through.  I would love to include a copy of the article.  (This was in our battlespace; it was our units; I work in the same building as the officers mentioned and will include copies of our papers in the readbooks for BG Swan and COL Batschelet, mentioned towards the end.)  But that doesn't fix anything.  So I will ramble here, to yall, because there will never be answers for any of this...

 

The previously mentioned TIME article:

Beaches from Marseille to Monaco have been plagued this summer by millions of the gelatinous invaders, whose burning stings have sent scores of holiday-makers fleeing the surf with yelps of pain since large numbers of jellyfish were first sighted along France's coast in June. And those menacing the shorelines are simply the outriders of giant shoals that marine biologists have identified hovering between Corsica and France's southern shores. Sections of that invertebrate mother ship are blown to land by unpredictable shifting winds that can turn coastal water into jellyfish marshes overnight — and then leave the same area virtually stinger-free the following day. A large part of the current jellyfish scare is that swimmers rarely know whether the water into which they're wading is benign Mediterranean surf or a dense minefield of tentacles.

The anxiety of the vacationers is forcing some tourism-dependent cities to take defensive measures. Several municipalities have prohibited swimming when the glob-to-human ratio gets too high. Such bans risk provoking the wrath of sweaty vacationers, but the alternative can be grim: on July 15 alone, rescue crews were called to the beaches of suburban Nice nearly 500 times to treat people for jellyfish stings.

Though jellyfish stings don't match shark attacks as a threat to human life — fatalities are usually linked to a few highly toxic species or (more frequently) shock and drowning resulting from multiple stings to people who swim into dense shoals — some French towns battling la meduse have adapted defensive methods from shark-plagued resorts elsewhere in the world. Cannes, for example, has invested nearly $50,000 in floaters and netting to create jellyfish-free zones the size of Olympic swimming pools at two of its most popular beaches. Similar systems have been deployed in Monaco and along certain sections of Marseille's coast. Though nets boast near perfect records in protecting bathers from stings, they do nothing to counter the larger jellyfish onslaught. Last year, Cannes shoveled over 11 million tons of the gooey creatures off its beaches — just a tiny fraction of a population that floats away to sting another day.

The bad news, according to experts, is that there's more of that gummy pain on the way. Overfishing and other destructive human activity have prompted the prolific multiplication of jellyfish by decimating their natural predators: tuna, sharks and turtles. That, and the fact that global warming has raised the water temperature of the Mediterranean by a degree, have produced an explosion of the jellyfish population and a prolonged presence of the creatures in waters where humans like to flounder. Traditionally, scientists say, jellyfish turn up along France's coastline every 10 to 12 years, for a period of four to five years. This is the eighth consecutive year that ever larger populations of jellyfish have camped out off the south of France — a trend experts say is unlikely to reverse itself since it reflects a domination of jellyfish over rivals in the food chain. Similar evolution has been noted in recent years off Spain, Italy and Greece.

 

[Josh]

God fucking damnit.

I remember seeing an article on that and Maliki's reaction in the
"Stars and Stripes" in the DFAC a while back. It was mostly on
Maliki's reactions. This is the first time since Haditha and Abu
Ghraib where I've seen article so explicitly listing civilian deaths
caused by servicemen. You see other articles come up from time to
time, mentioning civilian deaths as with the baghdad shooting from
blackwater and an article I saw where an apache killed 4 families of
farmers, but none has taken that tone before. I think a lot of it is
the political scene behind it. We finally have a clear cut case of
servicemen unjustifiably killing civilians, including an adult
civilian male, and the Iraqis want to do something about it. I pointed
the article out to one of new sgts in my unit and ended up having to
explain to him why it was a good thing they wanted a judge to preside
on it. This whole untouchable thing was nonsense from day one. You're
telling me the best funded military in the world is incapable of
training it's troops in proper escalation of force and identification?
This whole thing is fucked, man. And it's not like a car firing small
arms on a convoy would be able to actually do anything to a combat
patrol anyways. If they were carrying a bomb, why would there be three
people in the car, including 2 women? Also, why would they fire on an
armored convoy before detonating the bomb? It's fucking nonsense.

> menacing the shorelines are simply the outriders of *giant shoals that

> marine biologists have identified hovering between Corsica and France's

> southern shores*. Sections of that invertebrate mother ship are blown to

> land by unpredictable shifting winds that can turn coastal water into
> jellyfish marshes overnight — and then leave the same area virtually
> stinger-free the following day. A large part of the current jellyfish scare
> is that swimmers rarely know whether the water into which they're wading is
> benign Mediterranean surf or a dense minefield of tentacles.
>
> The anxiety of the vacationers is forcing some tourism-dependent cities to
> take defensive measures. Several municipalities have prohibited swimming
> when the glob-to-human ratio gets too high. Such bans risk provoking the
> wrath of sweaty vacationers, but the alternative can be grim: on July 15
> alone, rescue crews were called to the beaches of suburban Nice nearly 500
> times to treat people for jellyfish stings.
>
> Though jellyfish stings don't match shark attacks as a threat to human life
> — fatalities are usually linked to a few highly toxic species or (more
> frequently) shock and drowning resulting from multiple stings to people who

> swim into dense shoals — some French towns battling *la meduse* have adapted

> defensive methods from shark-plagued resorts elsewhere in the world. Cannes,
> for example, has invested nearly $50,000 in floaters and netting to create
> jellyfish-free zones the size of Olympic swimming pools at two of its most
> popular beaches. Similar systems have been deployed in Monaco and along
> certain sections of Marseille's coast. Though nets boast near perfect
> records in protecting bathers from stings, they do nothing to counter the

> larger jellyfish onslaught. *Last year, Cannes shoveled over 11
> million tonsof the gooey creatures off its beaches — just a tiny
> fraction of a
> population* that floats away to sting another day.
>
> *The bad news, according to experts, is that there's more of that gummy pain

> on the way. Overfishing and other destructive human activity have prompted
> the prolific multiplication of jellyfish by decimating their natural
> predators: tuna, sharks and turtles. That, and the fact that global warming
> has raised the water temperature of the Mediterranean by a degree, have
> produced an explosion of the jellyfish population and a prolonged presence
> of the creatures in waters where humans like to flounder. Traditionally,
> scientists say, jellyfish turn up along France's coastline every 10 to 12
> years, for a period of four to five years. This is the eighth consecutive
> year that ever larger populations of jellyfish have camped out off the south
> of France — a trend experts say is unlikely to reverse itself since it
> reflects a domination of jellyfish over rivals in the food chain. Similar

> evolution has been noted in recent years off Spain, Italy and Greece.*

> ...
>
> read more »