Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

Latest finding reveals effects of online climate change debate

[video][/video]

[Wade]

This is a true story as far as I know as my grandfather as told me:
Back in the 1940's David Suzuki and his family were sent to an interment camp in Slocan, British Columbia during the second world war. My grandfather was ten when he saw the first trains with Japanese people arrive. My great grandfather owned the sawmill and so my grandfather was part of a blue collared hard working family, who also were avid hunters/trappers. Naturally, I guess, my grandfather and David became enemies and he says they fought a lot, one being the scientist (hippy) and the other being the hillBilly Hicks (redneck).
They both are much older now with one in Vancouver and the other still in Slocan. I realize that one of them is famous and has had a big influence on science and maybe a lot of good too, while the other is relatively unknown.
When I look at someone who has traveled around the world using much fossil fuels and has lived in the city while owning a multi-million dollar mansion plus other properties. I wonder about their carbon footprint compared to my grandfather who cut down trees as a renewable resource and claims our area is more treed now than when he was a bush foreman because of better stewardship, who still goes out hiking in the wilderness, hunts, fishes, has a big garden, hangs his cloths on the line to dry, maintains and so owns older vehicles with low kilometers as he doesn't need to drive much of anywhere, has lived in the same house with no upgrades (except his living room being painted) since I was a child. Don't misunderstand me that my grandfather is not perfect.
But there is no doubt to me that the hillbilly's footprint is extremely smaller than the famous scientist. Even if David Sukuzi's carbon footprint is massively larger personally than my grandfathers; is it okay because he preaches differently and could have influenced others into being more environmentally aware and living with a lower environmental impact?

So whose life testify's they care about the environment?

[Bootstrap]

So whose life testify's they care about the environment?

I don't know. It sure sounds like your father cares about the environment. I don't know why David Suzuki travels or what he has done for the environment and other purposes. It's quite possible they both care a great deal about the environment.

But in general, the "who is better" kind of question doesn't help us figure out how to be good, especially when asked in a way that implies that "we" are better.

[Wade]

So whose life testify's they care about the environment?

I don't know. It sure sounds like your father cares about the environment. I don't know why David Suzuki travels or what he has done for the environment and other purposes. It's quite possible they both care a great deal about the environment.

But in general, the "who is better" kind of question doesn't help us figure out how to be good, especially when asked in a way that implies that "we" are better.

David Suzuki is a very famous scientist and climate change speaker. I am surprised you of all people have not heard of him? Maybe he is too far North?
Look him up. He is quoted using the Lord's name in vain and swearing at people because he is so serious about people getting serious about climate change, while he goes home to His mansion afterward. I'm trying to point out something here that I think you are missing or I am just not good at explaining.

And I apologize for coming across like I was asking "who is better." I don't think "we" are better, nor considered that I sounded like that...

Or is it just the person actively advocating something the one who thinks they are better? Or are more knowledgeable so they obviously know better being more intelligent?

One point is, that when these climate change scientists get serious about their own footprint it will likely have a bigger impact on those listening to actually do something too.
Maybe it is different from your experience but I am yet to meet a climate change activist that is willing to give up their "toys", trips, recreational drugs, etc., but I have had them talk much about overpopulation. So I continual get the impression that climate change activists are really saying that maintaining a luxurious lifestyle is more important to them than human life, and rather the using of natural resources will limit their capabilities in that lifestyle one day. That has nothing to do with me asking who is better, but rather priorities and who or Who one serves.

[RZehr]

Are you saying that it is more important to live right than to have right beliefs?

[PeterG]

Boot, when we have scientist telling us that the world is a production of evolution we tune them out. When "they" say that we are the same as monkeys, that homosexuality is okay, a fetus is fine to kill etc., we no longer assume their science is good and credibility once shot is awfully difficult to resuscitate.

These objections to the scientific consensus/so-called scientific consensus apply equally to its detractors. Show me a source of information about climate change—regardless of its stance on the subject—and I will show you significant issues on which we and that source would profoundly disagree. It is not at all clear to me that these detractors share my core beliefs to a greater extent than non-detractors do, or that detractors have retained more credibility than non-detractors.

Ultimately, while it's impossible to completely separate any sphere from spirituality, morality, and philosophy, scientific credibility is distinct from spiritual, moral, or philosophical credibility. A scientific argument should be evaluated on its own merits, in its own terms, and the general failure to treat climate change in this way is disheartening (though not surprising). There is very little climate change debate, but a great deal of climate change rhetorical posturing.

Is the goal to simply for us to get on some political bandwagon or what?

Yes, it is. Real scientific discussion of climate change is swamped by politicized rhetoric. If you read/hear/watch something about climate change, regardless of its perspective on the issue, chances are that's exactly what the goal is. And people are in denial if they think this doesn't apply to climate change information/rhetoric that shares their conclusion on the issue.

[Bootstrap]

Is the goal to simply for us to get on some political bandwagon or what?

Yes, it is. Real scientific discussion of climate change is swamped by politicized rhetoric. If you read/hear/watch something about climate change, regardless of its perspective on the issue, chances are that's exactly what the goal is. And people are in denial if they think this doesn't apply to climate change information/rhetoric that shares their conclusion on the issue.

I agree.

The exception to this is hardcore scientific publications that nobody seems to want to read.

[Bootstrap]

One point is, that when these climate change scientists get serious about their own footprint it will likely have a bigger impact on those listening to actually do something too.

I think they are calculating that the impact of their work benefits the environment more than the impact of their personal travel costs it. It would be very difficult to collaborate with scientists around the world, speak at various universities, be present at conferences, and provide advice to governments working on this without travel.

[Robert]

The exception to this is hardcore scientific publications that nobody seems to want to read.

This is not ScientificResearchNet. This is MennoNet. A place where us idiots can still voice our opinions. Why do you want to shut me down? What are you afraid of?

[Wade]

One point is, that when these climate change scientists get serious about their own footprint it will likely have a bigger impact on those listening to actually do something too.

I think they are calculating that the impact of their work benefits the environment more than the impact of their personal travel costs it. It would be very difficult to collaborate with scientists around the world, speak at various universities, be present at conferences, and provide advice to governments working on this without travel.

So, the people advocating changing the way we live are exempt from accountability of their impact because of us non-scientists following there advice and lessening our impact?

Is it just me or does that really sound oppressive?

Maybe I am just a lowly educated electrician but I was really fascinated when I got to attend an electrical energy savings conference hosted by the supply authority. It was one day long and they showed us charts and graphs about the costs and savings of technology. About automatic lights and thermostats and etc., etc.
I had just completed a project that cost only $9000 and was saving my place of work over $4000 a month on its power bills and was so intrigued.
Then at the last in closing the speaker said something to the effect:. All these inovations and technologies that can save huge amounts of energy and money can never save as much time, money, energy, and resources as simply just shutting off the light switch when you leave the room!