Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643

    Climate Change (read bottom up)

    antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] there is a hole in the bucket dear lisa dear lisa
    06-10-2010 01:36 AM Kevin Bonham
    i don't think banning such things is effective
    06-10-2010 01:35 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] such unnecessary travel should not be allowed. I know a guy determined to enter Darwin from the 3 or 4 different roads that go into it. Another who is determined to completely circuit USA in a big car. Both retired and both achieving nothing concrete in the process. Who do they think they are to put their arse behind a big car, they should be made to take public transport or a bike
    06-10-2010 01:34 AM Kevin Bonham
    oh, i'm sure it would make a difference if they all collectively decided to stop doing it, but i am not one of them
    06-10-2010 01:32 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] so people filling up their big 4 wheel drives every week, heading off anywhere, they even come from Sunshine Coast to Byron Beach, going paast a hundred other beaches in the process, millions of collectively doing that every week, if they took the decision to change their habit it would not make any difference? Surprisingly even China may be adopting pollution limits
    06-10-2010 01:31 AM Kevin Bonham
    (i) that the obligation exists (ii) that the risk is as serious as stated and (iii) that my contribution would make any real difference
    06-10-2010 01:30 AM Kevin Bonham
    if you're suggesting i have an obligation to spend more of my time averting global ecological catastrophe then i reject that on at least three different grounds
    06-10-2010 01:28 AM Kevin Bonham

    i don't pretend any of it means more than it does
    06-10-2010 01:26 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] and your response is exactly what I am referring to. Look how dedicated you are to pulling out my "weeds" and the folks at *******, as if it actually meant something, whereas you adopt a differing position on something a lot more important
    06-10-2010 01:24 AM Kevin Bonham
    and some people will always (correctly) figure that while particular global actions are necessary, what they themselves do will make no difference so they may as well do it


    [Edit | Delete] that is one of the main reasons for my lack of respect of other posters, they are intelligent people but choose to keep polluting or not take the lead on it
    06-10-2010 01:22 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] or about our own survival in a manner that we can be certain of
    06-10-2010 01:22 AM Kevin Bonham
    intelligence has nothing to do with altruism or morality
    06-10-2010 01:21 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] should we know enough that we should be acting.
    06-10-2010 01:21 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] I cant beleive how supposedly intelligent people can still drive cars on unnecessary trips and not demanding a complete change of transport systems, I think we know that we should be acting
    06-10-2010 01:20 AM Kevin Bonham
    as to what is happening, do you really *know*?
    06-10-2010 01:19 AM Kevin Bonham
    part of it was about pteropods and water acidity - related to climate change
    06-10-2010 01:19 AM Kevin Bonham
    part of it was about TBT causing snails to grow organs of the opposite sex - unrelated to climate change
    06-10-2010 01:18 AM Kevin Bonham
    it was actually about a couple of different things
    06-10-2010 01:18 AM antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] what is happening is much more serious than how I may or may not represent it


    antichrist
    [Edit | Delete] and even if that Echo article was about marine snails changing sex, it was still very serious and relevant to the issue of climate change or pollution change
    Last edited by antichrist; 06-10-2010 at 02:30 PM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643
    Yes KB, we are all conspiring in the genocide of other species - can't we be proud of ourselves.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,972
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    there is a hole in the bucket dear lisa dear lisa
    I had absolutely no idea what AC was wibbling about in invoking this line and so couldn't be bothered continuing the debate. He has now provided clarification in the other place:

    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    the hole in the bucket was about all the rules he hassles me with but does not seem to care if no rules against global warming, talk about having his priorities wrong
    As usual with AC he is barking up the wrong tree and strawmanning my views on the subject. I questioned a particular solution he proposed (banning "such unnecessary travel") and the only ground I gave for questioning it (though there are others!) was that I believed that solution to be impractical to enforce. AC draws from this that I don't care whether there is any regulation affecting practices that might contribute to global warming, which is a completely spurious (and stupid) inference from what I actually said.

    By comparison, banning posters from here when they persistently misbehave is generally quite practical and effective in keeping the site clear of unwelcome behaviour.

    As for any connection between the content of "There's a Hole in my Bucket" and whatever message it is supposed to carry, and AC's attempt to accuse me of inconsistency, that completely escapes me.

    So yet another case of AC's stupid trolling analogies that are never even remotely applicable.

  5. #5
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    44

    I am concerned about climate change

    Whilst I disagree with a lot of what has been written above,I am concerned about climate change caused by pollution.I also think most people (in some countries) don't make enough effort to minimize pollution they create.Below is what I have done and it wasn't hard.

    * Sold my car years ago and get around by bike,public transport and car pools.When I need a car, which is rarely, I get a taxi.

    * Encouraged friends and family to get solar panels for their homes.

    * Most of the stuff I own is second hand and almost all the electronic and computer stuff I have has been saved from going to the tip.

    * Made my views known to others.

    Of course it makes almost no difference to the millions of tons of CO2 pumped into the air everyday but it's better than not making an effort at all.
    Last edited by DogLover; 07-10-2010 at 07:56 AM.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643
    Quote Originally Posted by DogLover
    Whilst I disagree with a lot of what has been written above,I am concerned about climate change caused by pollution.I also think most people don't make enough effort to minimize pollution they create.Below is what I have done and it wasn't hard.

    * Sold my car years ago and get around by bike,public transport and car pools.When I need a car, which is rarely, I get a taxi.

    * Encouraged friends and family to get solar panels for their homes.

    * Most of the stuff I own is second hand and almost all the electronic and computer stuff I have has been saved from going to the tip.

    * Made my views known to others.

    Of course it makes almost no difference to the millions of tons of CO2 pumped into the air everyday but it's better than not making an effort at all.
    at least u can look your offspring in the eye -

    it does make a difference having offspring, I have read it many times, parents do actually care about the world they are leaving their children.

    thanks for the back up

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I had absolutely no idea what AC was wibbling about in invoking this line and so couldn't be bothered continuing the debate. He has now provided clarification in the other place:



    As usual with AC he is barking up the wrong tree and strawmanning my views on the subject. I questioned a particular solution he proposed (banning "such unnecessary travel") and the only ground I gave for questioning it (though there are others!) was that I believed that solution to be impractical to enforce. AC draws from this that I don't care whether there is any regulation affecting practices that might contribute to global warming, which is a completely spurious (and stupid) inference from what I actually said.

    By comparison, banning posters from here when they persistently misbehave is generally quite practical and effective in keeping the site clear of unwelcome behaviour.

    As for any connection between the content of "There's a Hole in my Bucket" and whatever message it is supposed to carry, and AC's attempt to accuse me of inconsistency, that completely escapes me.

    So yet another case of AC's stupid trolling analogies that are never even remotely applicable.
    AC

    well with your permission I will have another attempt and as is my thread another analogy.

    Yes everyone else is doing it, it will make no difference, though I admit that you are not doing it, and laws will not make much difference. All these variatons were what sabotaged the Copenhagen summit on greenhouse gases.

    As mentioned above I consider it "almost" a conspiracy to genocide of other species - flora and fauna etc, not just global warming doing the damage but all the terrible things we do to the environment. The environmental movement that I officially joined in 1975 (Friends of the Earth) campaigned on all these issues, esp in GB.

    Now if the genicide was of the "Chosen People" like has happened just last century, well then and rightly so we have not seen or heard the end of it.

    I only make this point to ask why cant we have the similar importance to all the hundreds or thousand of other species that we are wiping out.

    I am sure excuses were made as to why not help The Chosen People 80 years ago, blah blah, and they were all wrong and immoral and self serving, just as current excuses are about not urgently stopping genicide of other species, flora and fauna.

    I am in no trying to inflame or abuse any element or any people - just trying to get my message through.

    My only satisfaction is the green movement is finally getting some power so my work and arrests of 35 years ago were not in vain, though at the time I thought they may have been.

    And the traits that came out of some Germans 80 years ago are in us all.

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,972
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    I only make this point to ask why cant we have the similar importance to all the hundreds or thousand of other species that we are wiping out.
    If you try to find an ethical framework that really considers the "rights" and wellbeing of specimens of every other animal species on the same level as ourselves you'll find it so restricts human action that virtually nobody will bother with it.

    Practically speaking the debate's not really about whether we should be "speciesist" but how speciesist we should be. I support protecting species from known extinction risks, and ideally maintaining as many as possible in a secure and healthy natural condition, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on industry and liberty over claimed extinction risks that are actually far from scientifically reliable. In the specific area of climate change, there is already a substantial history of sloppy science and exaggeration in the extrapolations of extinction risk.

    Nothing doing with your silly analogies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    I am in no trying to inflame or abuse any element or any people - just trying to get my message through.
    Your melodramatic and hackneyed method of attempting to do so makes it absolutely certain you will fail.

    My only satisfaction is the green movement is finally getting some power so my work and arrests of 35 years ago were not in vain, though at the time I thought they may have been.
    The Greens may talk the talk but are still too often scientifically clueless. They are prone to support excessive actions to "protect" a few glamorous vertebrate species while having no real handle on the conservation priorities that will really make a difference.

  9. #9
    CC FIDE Master littlesprout85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Beyond da Abyss
    Posts
    630
    Sprout is on board with KB's on this issue,

    Meh totally think that there is climate change occuring at the present times.

    Arizona is a desert climate, and here u can tell that things are changing rapidly. The average tempature is going up every year along with the electric bill. Also this month oct/2010 we are now experiencing Tornado's in this desert state. Also Arizona in this month of oct has gotten 3 inches of rain, which is like a whole years worth of rain in just one month.

    The Climate change is directly due to mankind and this current trend of making everything cheap. Take for instance,cars. Back in the day cars were made to last. the average man would buy perhaps 5 cars/trucks in their lifetimes. The car industry frowned apon this concept. Now the auto industry is making the product cheaply. which means the average guy has to buy at least 10-20 cars/trucks in the same lifetime- AUGH !!!!!! This is good for the auto industry but very sad for the average guy and the environment :C

    -Sprout85 =)
    ChessChat's Break0ut High Score Champion - 02/02/2012
    ChessChat's Space Invaders High Score Champion - 09/24/2012
    ChessChat's Moon Lander High Score Champion - 10/07/2012
    ChessChat's Asteroids High Score Champion - 10/19/2012

    ChessChat's Current Reigning King of the Arcade since 10/07/2012

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643
    [QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]If you try to find an ethical framework that really considers the "rights" and wellbeing of specimens of every other animal species on the same level as ourselves you'll find it so restricts human action that virtually nobody will bother with it.

    AC
    I admit that it will take another generation before consensus has reached anywhere near that level. Just because it is currently unobtainable does not mean that it should not be a goal.


    KB
    Practically speaking the debate's not really about whether we should be "speciesist" but how speciesist we should be. I support protecting species from known extinction risks, and ideally maintaining as many as possible in a secure and healthy natural condition, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support restrictions on industry and liberty over claimed extinction risks that are actually far from scientifically reliable. In the specific area of climate change, there is already a substantial history of sloppy science and exaggeration in the extrapolations of extinction risk.

    AC
    the bolded section is the big gap - there are people prepared to sacrifice many "comforts" to help the environment in a big way, but this sabotaged by supposed liberties (when has been a liberty to wipe out another "species" - not since WW2 anyway). And industry will never voluntarily do much that will curtain their profits coz their mantra is to maximise profits.

    So we adopt a Gillard pre-election campaign position, of doing virtually nothing until everyone agrees and it is too late coz everything is already stuffed (literally and figuratively), then they will make the excuse "Oh it is too late now it's stuffed". What a cop out

    KB
    Nothing doing with your silly analogies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    AC
    My analogy did have traction. You slipped on this one coz I was not making the traditional comparison in your reference, I was making the genocidal connection. So got you there. That is why I was trying to treat the issue sensitively.

    KB
    Your melodramatic and hackneyed method of attempting to do so makes it absolutely certain you will fail.

    AC
    still love ya

    KB
    The Greens may talk the talk but are still too often scientifically clueless. They are prone to support excessive actions to "protect" a few glamorous vertebrate species while having no real handle on the conservation priorities that will really make a difference.

    AC
    when I first joined FoE I thought they were extreme, but after thinkiing (me can think?) for a few years about it, I come to realise that their "extreme" position was what was necessary for the "extreme" situation at hand. So it what was necessary and reasonable.

    Do I pick up a bit of resentment that the greens are "ignoring" non-vertebrate species - the vertebrate ones are probably more "sexy" as they say, so are easier to campaign on.

  11. #11
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    Do I pick up a bit of resentment that the greens are "ignoring" non-vertebrate species - the vertebrate ones are probably more "sexy" as they say, so are easier to campaign on.
    Well mammals even sexier still. That's why PETA wanted to rename fish as "sea kittens" or something equally silly.

    If you look at pets, we generally have mammals, next most popular are vertebrates (fish, snakes lizards and other reptiles). Not so many invertebrates so we don't empathise with them nearly so much. Empathy is not necessarily a good reason to make a decision it is how a lot of decisions are made.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643
    A woman had a pet rat in her bosum the other day at the club. In the restaurant that I am sure breaks hygiene rules. Anyway the funny part was she had bought ratsac for when it got too big.

  13. #13
    CC FIDE Master littlesprout85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Beyond da Abyss
    Posts
    630


    Sprouty isnt going to be clubing at the same club as
    AC any timez soon - oh Heck NO !!!!!1

    -Sprout85 =)
    ChessChat's Break0ut High Score Champion - 02/02/2012
    ChessChat's Space Invaders High Score Champion - 09/24/2012
    ChessChat's Moon Lander High Score Champion - 10/07/2012
    ChessChat's Asteroids High Score Champion - 10/19/2012

    ChessChat's Current Reigning King of the Arcade since 10/07/2012

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,643

    Murray River Basin

    curbs of water usage from Murray River ranging from 27% to 37% are envisaged in report coming out tomorrow. We know this river is in death throes, yet the irrigators are campaigning against any cutbacks.

    So even when it is too late it is still not late enough for people with the profit motive - water cuts yes will curtail business activity - do you support them or not KB? The punters are waiting

  15. #15
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,972
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    I admit that it will take another generation before consensus has reached anywhere near that level. Just because it is currently unobtainable does not mean that it should not be a goal.
    Even another generation and consensus will never get anywhere near that level. Indeed even the minority opinion will talk about being "fair" to other species but pay actually doing so lip service. It is normal for species to seek to shape the environment to suit themselves even if other species are wiped out in the process. The only difference between us and the others is that we are disturbingly good at it.

    (when has been a liberty to wipe out another "species" - not since WW2 anyway).
    I think you're getting taxonomically confused here. And what I am saying is that even if you want to suggest that liberty exists on the condition that no species are wiped out in the process, you still need to show that illiberal restrictions will in fact save species.

    My analogy did have traction. You slipped on this one coz I was not making the traditional comparison in your reference, I was making the genocidal connection. So got you there. That is why I was trying to treat the issue sensitively.
    No that is exactly the comparison I thought you were making and it was exactly on that basis that I considered it idiotic, so you haven't "got me" at all.

    when I first joined FoE I thought they were extreme, but after thinkiing (me can think?) for a few years about it, I come to realise that their "extreme" position was what was necessary for the "extreme" situation at hand. So it what was necessary and reasonable.
    But do you actually know enough about the science to know what is "necessary"? I doubt it.

    Do I pick up a bit of resentment that the greens are "ignoring" non-vertebrate species - the vertebrate ones are probably more "sexy" as they say, so are easier to campaign on.
    Not that simple; they'll quite happily use a prominent invertebrate if they can market it to suit their purposes. But the species the Greens make the most fuss over is those that are widespread and that they can say (whether it is actually all that true or not) are threatened by logging. They are happy to use dubious science to agitate for glamorous forest areas but if real conservation of a species is about looking after scrappy blocks of unattractive grassland or degraded scrub they'll hardly pay it a moment's attention. They are not fundamentally about threatened species but more often about using them as a means to an end.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 5550
    Last Post: 20-11-2019, 04:07 PM
  2. Copenhagen summit (sf COAG)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 13-03-2010, 02:43 PM
  3. Changes in the 1st July 2009 Laws of Chess - what do they mean
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 15-06-2009, 09:35 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •