Sunday, December 13, 2009

Collective soul (and much more)

Posted by Mickey Z on 12/13 at 07:18 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus

  1. Love your Seatbelt Supposition.  Great analogy.

    With respect to global warming possibly being a hoax, neither you nor I can say much on the subject.  We’re not scientists.  It comes down to which group of scientists we choose to believe.  Whenever I read an article on climate change, I immediately Google the name of the author.  Sourcewatch.org has proven to be an invaluable site, as it lists all prominent scientists in the climate change arena, both for and against, and what their backgrounds and affiliations are.  In almost all cases with the global warming naysayers (in my experience, anyway), they usually turn out to be funded by ExxonMobil or some equivalent corporate giant with a stake in the matter.

    Posted by Charles from Jersey City  on  12/13  at  09:27 AM

  2. Thanks, Charles. I’d like to think that the seat belt supposition is evidence that need not be a scientist to have a valid opinion on this topic.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/13  at  09:30 AM

  3. Well, the Seatbelt Supposition is basically saying it’s best to have an insurance policy.  And I completely agree.  All I’m saying is neither one of us really has the knowledge to agree or dispute what the various scientists on either side say on the subject.  That’s why I like to know where they’re coming from.

    Posted by Charles from Jersey City  on  12/13  at  09:51 AM

  4. I disagree in principle. If any of us chose we could have as much knowledge as we wish to have on any scientific subject. This, combined with common sense and a skeptical spirit, is the best path toward truth.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/13  at  10:42 AM

  5. Gotta agree with Mickey here.
    Think of Dylan’s line about “the old folk’s home in the university”.
    These experts and bureaucrats seem to exist solely to justify themselves and their beliefs.
    Their either bought out by corporations, ego or false consciousness.
    That’s why it so easy to distrust them.
    Keep your eyes open, “don’t follow leaders watch your parking meters”.

    Posted by Bob T. from Archer, FL  on  12/13  at  10:53 AM

  6. mick / et/al ~~~ THE ARTICLE WAS RIGHT ON ... THE OLD ADAGE ... MY LIL PIECE OF THE PLANET .. SEEMS TO B DOIN FINE .. SO WHY SHOULD I WORRY ?????  CLEAR CUTTIN / STRIP MININ / HORDE FISHING / CLEAN COAL ??  NUCLEAR ?????? SPENT FUEL RODS !! JUMBO TRANSMISSION LINES .. KILLIN COW’S MILK .. SO WHAT .. ?? o… u mean .. i m suppose to think ‘bout others ????? KILLJOY !!  .. ME ~~~~~~ MYSELF ~~~~~~~~ AND I ... well we seem to b doin fine .. pass me a puff n snort .. i’m feelin a lil blue at the moment . !

    http://tinyurl.com/bjvhnn bullwork message—1970 !

    Posted by richie from st james city, FL  on  12/13  at  02:42 PM

  7. I find the climate change ‘debate’ to be a huge diversion tactic, even by those who accept it.

    The reason is, there are hundreds of other, obvious and clearly factual cases of environmental damage, reduction of biodiversity, poisoning, food issues, cruelty, weapons ..etc etc ... without taking global warming into account, there are still many good reasons, that can be proved beyond a doubt, why we need to roll back industrial civ and get green.

    I know Mickey says this in many ways and in many articles, but it’s so true ..green is good ... there are only good sides to going green for you, others and the planet. So why not just do it.

    I guess this is basically the same idea as the seatbelt.

    I just think it’s dangerous that big governments have some token emissions talks, and the media get into it ... some people drive a Prius ..blah blah ... and in the background the environment is still attacked at a lethal rate in many ways and the perps are above justice.

    Posted by Andy from shanghai  on  12/13  at  03:27 PM

  8. The seatbelt supposition is very good. It’s a clear, straightforward way to get less thoughtful people onboard at least considering the issue.

    But I agree with Andy that the ‘debate’ itself is a diversion. No scientific evidence needed. Reminds me of the ‘question’ as to whether cigarettes were detrimental to one’s health...going back to the 60’s or so. Long-time smokers often like to say “we didn’t know they were unhealthy back then”. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that if you smoke, you cough. If you smoke a lot, you cough up a lot of nasty shit.

    Same with the environment. Pour poison on your lawn, or on the plants in your apartment, and watch them die.

    Yesterday, high in the sky, I saw migrating birds, perhaps 50-100 of them, in a V-pattern, and realized how in my own short lifetime I observe this less and less often. As a kid in the 70’s and 80’s it was something I saw daily in a certain season. Now, it’s just totally rare.

    Posted by Keir from here and there  on  12/13  at  04:07 PM

  9. I must concur. If tomorrow, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans played no role in global warming, we’d still be in a state of emergency, re: our eco-system.

    I think I smell a new article brewing.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/13  at  08:23 PM

  10. Keir, I generally agree with your assessment, but again, climate change is a specific issue within environmental awareness, and I do think scientific evidence plays a determining factor.  There is no question we’re poisoning the planet.  We don’t even need to debate that.  But there’s no way for us to gauge that the Earth is warming as a result of what we’re doing.  It’s not like lighting a cigarette back in the 60s.  There’s nothing intuitive about the idea of global warming.  The results aren’t directly observable to average citizens.

    Even if global warming turned out to be a total hoax, it doesn’t change our responsibility as stewards of the Earth or the need to reduce our global footprint.  I’m just saying it isn’t possible to know if sea levels are rising or icecaps are melting without trusting the information scientists feed us.

    Posted by Charles from Jersey City  on  12/13  at  08:33 PM

  11. I’m not sure I understand your point, Charles. You could just as easily say it isn’t possible to know just about anything.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/13  at  09:12 PM

  12. You don’t need a scientist to tell you that smoking a cigarette is bad.  You can feel it.  It fills up your lungs, it makes you cough, it stains your teeth.  The effects are directly observable.

    You don’t need a scientist to tell you that our drinking water is awful.  Tap water here in Jersey is brutal.  A friend of mine from Maine took a shower in my apartment.  She came out of the shower with red, splotchy skin.  The waters in Maine are far more pristine.

    How do you gauge manmade global warming?  Can you walk outside and say without hesitation that the earth is not only warming, but warming due to the activities of mankind?  It’s just not something we can know through a simple observation.  That’s my point.  We wouldn’t even know this issue exists without scientists to tell us about it.

    Posted by Charles from Jersey City  on  12/13  at  09:31 PM

  13. I’ve seen some pretty palpable weather changes in my nearly 50 years, for example: how much snow once fell in NYC compared to now. Also, certain islands in Micronesia have nearly disappeared due to a rise in sea level. I’d doubt the residents there need scientific proof for what they see.

    Conversely, I know folks who will tell you how great it feels to take a drag on a cigarette. And until the 1970s, cigarettes were advertised on TV. I remember going to a doctor’s office and patients were smoking in the waiting room and the doctor himself was smoking.

    While I think we all agree that global warming is not really the point, since industry never fails to seek a profit at any cost, I’ll put my faith in corporations doing whatever it takes to obscure their role in climate change.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/13  at  09:46 PM

  14. Like you said, it’s easy to see how the weather has changed here in the tristate area, especially in the winter, but my point is that there’s no way to know that this is specifically due to man’s influence on the climate.  It could be just part of a natural warming trend.  We can’t be sure without the scientists to tell us so.

    And, to paraphrase what I said the other day, corporations suck.  That’s all I’m saying.

    Posted by Charles from Jersey City  on  12/13  at  11:15 PM

  15. I get what you’re saying Charles. Perhaps the issue is not that you and I are unable to say without a doubt that climate change is a result of human activity, but that those in tune with the planet can.

    I have casually observed in my lifetime that there are fewer migratory birds in the sky. I have also casually observed that oil spills, among other human activity, kill birds. I can unscientifically make a connection there.

    We might need science. But there are those who know what is going beyond the science of it. (Anyone remember this New York Times Magazine article from a few years ago: An Elephant Crackup?)

    To say we can’t be sure without the scientists to tell us is to suggest that how we--or rather those in tune with the natural world--feel in this context is not important. But I think it is.

    Posted by Keir from here and there  on  12/13  at  11:48 PM

  16. Charles，

    Human activity is the ‘question’. That it’s happening at all is not. The polar caps have melted, more than since we’ve been recording it. It has been seen and recorded. The Ross ice shelf.

    But in the big picture, that human activity is destroying our environment is not in question.

    Posted by Andy from shanghai  on  12/14  at  07:40 AM

  17. Thanks, all...for a useful exchange. A new post is now up so please feel free to carry this discussion over onto the new thread.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from Astoria  on  12/14  at  08:33 AM

Next entry: Copenhagen clampdown

Previous entry: Obama's forked tongue