Originally Posted by addabox
Look, let's skip the point by point things since it gets old and cut the crap.
Goodness knows we wouldn't want to address the point someone is making. It is so much better to shout down and insult them instead.
Your one and only point is that people who advocate for a response to global warming who are insufficiently rigorous in their personal lives are evil. Everything else is just hand waving.
They are evil. Unlike other beliefs and perspectives where there is some philosophy, worldview or other means where disagreements can still fester, in this case they can be proven scientifically to be evil.
Also you water the facts down with your language that suggests mere philosophical disagreement. If the planet cannot absorb the carbon they produce as a result of their lifestyle, it isn't just "insufficiently rigorous," it is party to planetary murder.
I understand why you would want a lot of hand waving, because that central point is more or less insane.
To defend it, you've been obliged to
Insanity is psychology silly. We are talking about a true hard science. Sure it may be at the proto-science stage but the models show that unless we all significantly change, we all die.
1) Claim that global warming is unique and makes unique demands on advocates for change, so that we cannot apply your reasoning to any other area of human enterprise to test its efficaciousness, which is convenient for you but transparently dishonest,
Global warming is unique in that as a moral issue it has a scientific provable right and wrong outcomes. This isn't possible with other moral issues. I can't say science has proven that if you shack up with your girlfriend, you are guaranteed to get an STD. I can say that science has proven that if you live in the future as you live now and do not undertake dramatic change, the planet will die.
2) Claim that a single example of hypocrisy somehow tars the entire notion of advocating for change in response to global warming, which is merely silly,
First of all it isn't a single example. The majority of the leadership of the entire movement acts in the same manner. They simply pay their carbon offsets/indulgences which are of questionable return and then continue to live as they previously had done.
3) Decouple that evil of hypocritical environmental advocates from any argument about the factual basis for global warming, which I realize you intend as a clever "taking them at their word and hoisting them on their own petard" trope but in fact just robs your talk of "evil" of any import or sense, and
I think you assign some sort of strange intent here for NOT wanting to claim global warming is a lie. However if a person's mouth speaks the truth, but their actions do not follow the truth, what do you call the person?
4) Persist in this mincing imitation of a dispassionate observer who is simply dealing with the facts at hand, whereas everyone here knows exactly how you feel about the merits of global warming and the character of those who would advocate for change. Oh, and
It isn't an imitation. If I take you at your word about a subject. Then note that you don't seem to follow your own conclusions, I can question your word without questioning the subject.
You are simply so used to personal attacks that you can't imagine a subject being outside of a person. You think by discrediting the person, you've discredited the point.
You hate Al Gore, you think global warming is a crock, and you'll seize on anything you can to put the entire enterprise in a bad light. Trying to flesh that out into some kind of grand unified theory of environmental advocacy as "evil" is just incoherent and sort of scary, and no amount of pretending to carefully parse the variables changes that. It just makes it more tedious.
You didn't have to work so hard to prove my just mentioned point.
Originally Posted by franksargent
Your basic premise of "save the planet" is bogus, I think Planet Earth will do just fine without us!
I'm sure it did just fine before we were here as well and will after we are gone.
Besides, the basic argument is about rate of change (ROC) in Earth's environment (current/future), and attempting to slow the apparent future ROC over BAU, for obvious reasons (from my take of the GW science). It isn't a black and white issue, it isn't do or die, and we won't allow you to frame it in such context (try as you might), TYVM!
It wasn't me alone framing it this way. I'm taking parties like Laurie David and Al Gore and repeating their own assertions. Are you suggesting we might only manslaughter the planet instead of merely murder it?
Again, this is why we don't want to debate global warming in this thread. The claims that you suggest, that we might be talking about inches of say, sea level rising instead of flooded cities can be claimed as a attempt to deflect from the need to change. I'm not trying to suggest there is less of a need for change. I'm simply saying that those who claim a great and dramatic need for change do not take great or dramatic changes upon themselves. They aren't even especially efficient compared to a lay person.
And you seem to be arguing for "one person one carbon footprint" (e. g. everyone would be allowed a per capita footprint), so that if you are above the average you are "bad" and if you are below the average you are "good." As I stated previously, mo' money means mo' toys, e. g. people who are wealthier will have a larger carbon footprint, and it doesn't matter whatever their political stripe, prove otherwise.
Well since income and wealth can be created from nothing, it is silly to claim it is limited and thus should be redistributed. However we cannot create a planet from nothing, and the ecosystems within do appear to have limits. If you can think of a more fair system than per capita then you are more than welcome to put it forward. I suppose we could all have more carbon if there were fewer people to share it with. As you noted the rich in this case must pay the poor to endure a more carbon deficient lifestyle. That is the reasoning behind a Kyoto type treaty.
Those of us who consider ALL the facts surrounding GW, know that it's the MESSAGE that is important, not the MESSENGER!
Your viewpoint is a classic ad hominem!
We don't have to shoot the messenger, but if they don't seem to understand their own message, then shouldn't we question the messenger?
Originally Posted by Fellowship
Take a look at this Nick:
It looks like the new fad is being a "green snob"
Don't get me wrong I have no issue with people taking care not to be wasteful.
BUT does it not seem there is a new fad to out-green your peers.
Damn them, they will probably be boasting about their mpg on their vehicles next.
I'm just having fun with you Fellows and thanks for the links. Due to our past discussions, you know I was bringing up carbon and energy footprints per capita long before we were discussing Laurie David.
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
Efforts to stop global warming are far more concerned with systemic change-- EPA regulations, treaties, rules, etc-- than voluntary individual effort.
The website of Al Gore
doesn't agree with you. Sure systemic change is part of the solution, but individuals are absolutely encouraged to act.
In case you don't think I should tie Al Gore and Laurie David together you should remember that she
was the one of the producers of his movie.
You will also note the link from her own site
advocates smaller and more personal actions as well.