Is Environmentalism going too far?

Yes, I agree. But last century we do contribute to these changes greatly with all these river dambs and mines, forest cuts, pollutions, excess of hunting and fishing (btw, these giant jellyfishes aren't food chain for a commercial fish. They more like ganitors in their nature http://marinebiologyoceanography.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_giant_jellyfish_of_japan)

And, when they were showing these glasiers collapses in the last 25 years of tracking in millions of tonns, I don't think(and numbers are their proof) it was ever in such speed.
We do shitting the Planet one way or another enormously.
 
Mother nature can wipe out humans whenever she wants to.
 
Matt84 said:
Less than encouraging news regarding meat

I am 100% pro efficiency, and I want a clean body, town and planet. The first is my own responsibility, while the latter is up for discussion:

I am curious and would just appreciate the feedback, I'm NOT making a point here.

1) Do you think Environmentalism is a science like Ecology, or a political movement?

2) Do you feel a bit constrained when talking about the issue? Do you believe it's not PC to discuss it openly?

Shoot!
Click to expand...
I regards to your meat article and the methane from cows, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, and the techonology to exctract it from cow manure already exsist, so there is no reason to stop eating meat we just have to process the methane from the cows and use it to generate electricity wich brings me to your first question, even if enviromentalism is a political movement how can it be bad to promote greener and cleaner energy????
 
DA said:
I regards to your meat article and the methane from cows, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, and the techonology to exctract it from cow manure already exsist, so there is no reason to stop eating meat we just have to process the methane from the cows and use it to generate electricity wich brings me to your first question, even if enviromentalism is a political movement how can it be bad to promote greener and cleaner energy????
Click to expand...
The fundamental principle is a good one, where things go wrong is when it becomes so politicised that bad science is accepted as fact and the people who have the most sway are those who have the most to gain.
 
DA said:
I regards to your meat article and the methane from cows, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, and the techonology to exctract it from cow manure already exsist, so there is no reason to stop eating meat we just have to process the methane from the cows and use it to generate electricity wich brings me to your first question, even if enviromentalism is a political movement how can it be bad to promote greener and cleaner energy????
Click to expand...

It's not bad at all, that's why I began by saying "I'm 100% pro efficiency". I just used a random article out of Drudge to begin this thread and probe your minds. In the specific case of bovine methane (I remember this idea but for humans in a Dilbert strip. He granted the tubes might be a lil unconfortable) I felt like it was more of a fad story than a science one. For instance I believe that in India they've been using cow fart for decades to cook. They just carry the manure to a big hole with a tap, and wait for the gas to emanate and lift the cap, then you've got methane on one side, and solid fertilizer on the bottom.

There're many ideas for clean fuel, my favorite is OTEC, which's been around for a long time as well. And even that guy Lovejoy who came up with the Gtheaia Living Earth concept stated that Nuclear Energy was mankind's only chance.

My point is that there seems to be a breach between science+technology and a new religion+political movement.

But it goes further: There's a lot of talk 'bout "good" and "bad" science. Well how can that be?

Well a similar thing happened from the late XIXc to the late XXc and it revolved around Economics: On one majority side, people tried to make a hard science of it and pretended to control it: In America through a crippling beaurocracy and in Germany and Russia through outright Dictates. Remember most of those who enacted those controls were NOT Economists. On the other side a minority of Economists (the Austrian School and specifically Ludwig von Mises) came to the conclusion that their discipline was not exactly a science. Mises used the neologism "Praxeology", the study of practice. He considered that every little "Human Action" could not be counted, predicted, or directed but through spontaneous organization.
It's not surprising that it was that disenfranchised minority that History would prove right -

Now I contend that Meteorology or other Earth Sciences are facing a similar treatment. Again, it's not the scientists, but the politicians and activists that (ab)use them.

Or in XXc terms: It was not Genius Keynes who stiffled, starved and killed millions; it was Adolf, Attlee, and Stalin.
 
Matt84 said:
On the other side a minority of Economists (the Austrian School and specifically Ludwig von Mises) came to the conclusion that their discipline was not exactly a science. Mises used the neologism "Praxeology", the study of practice. He considered that every little "Human Action" could not be counted, predicted, or directed but through spontaneous organization.
It's not surprising that it was that disenfranchised minority that History would prove right -

Now I contend that Meteorology or other Earth Sciences are facing a similar treatment. Again, it's not the scientists, but the politicians and activists that (ab)use them.

Or in XXc terms: It was not Genius Keynes who stiffled, starved and killed millions; it was Adolf, Attlee, and Stalin.
Click to expand...

Thoughtful post. +1

The Social Sciences do seem to have Physics envy, don't they?

I think Hayek, another Austrian, called this Scientism while the Physicist Richard Feynman called it Cargo Cult Science.

Regarding the Environmentalist movement, I think we have to be very careful characterizing people claiming this mantle as some very prominent environmentalists, Stewart Brand for example, have finally become supporters of Nuclear energy.

That said, given the massive amount of funding going into Climate Research, it should come as no surprise that people (and Scientists are just people) will lie. What does surprise me is that so many people that I know question my character and motivations when I question this sacred cow. Lately, I've just begun to ask them if they've read any of the CRU docs [1] or know who Rajendra K. Pachauri is. This usually reveals that they've not really taken the time to study the issue.

One last thing, have you noticed how many Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) folks support Cap And Trade while at the same time professing to hate the likes of Goldman Sachs, derivative markets and the exploitation of the poor?

[1] http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

To see just how weird we humans can be, check out the John Frum worshipers [2].

[2] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8185483439557323668#



Folks might also be interested in Hayke's notion of
 
As the temperature in Britain falls below -20º C, does this now mean I can at last leave my tele on standby again? :D
 
objectiveous said:
Thoughtful post. +1

The Social Sciences do seem to have Physics envy, don't they?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's frightening.

objectiveous said:
I think Hayek, another Austrian, called this Scientism while the Physicist Richard Feynman called it Cargo Cult Science.
Click to expand...

I've hard of this John Frum Cargo Cult. It's amazing how small islands under unusual situations (H.K. would be the diametrical opposite) can serve as case studies of human behaviour. Extrapolated to a Western Society John would be big brother or/and nanny welfare. The theology expands and dilutes into popular belief but the mystic belief is the same in Vanuatu as it is in the some First World societies. I wonder if Lord of the Flies was inspired by this phenomenon.

objectiveous said:
One last thing, have you noticed how many Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) folks support Cap And Trade while at the same time professing to hate the likes of Goldman Sachs, derivative markets and the exploitation of the poor?
Click to expand...

Well big groups need some way to control all that pesky potential competition and under a democracy they need to put all that cocktail money to work to secure their interests. Just as in a third world country dictatorship they would use that $ to keep/gain their interests through firepower in a Democracy they wag the dog. Cannon fodder, Vote fodder. It's a form of Cannibalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top