It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychologists enter the 'ECO Green' fight!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Just an fyi:


Who We Are
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 148,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

APA Mission Statement
The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

Organizational Purposes
APA Bylaws 1.1
The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by

the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner

the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions

the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association

the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications

thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare.

www.apa.org...

Promotion of health, education, and public welfare.

The fact that in opposition to all the major relevant scientific organisations, international organisations, most governments around the world, some people don't think that awareness and understanding of environmental concerns is in the pursuit of public welfare is of little concern.

As I said, you would need to go out and show that these issues are not a concern. To do that, you would need to be bringing science to the relevant scientific discussion.

For tobacco. That would be biology and medicine.

For climate change. That would be climate science.

For psychologists to ignore issues that are well-established to be of public and human concern, they would be betraying their reponsibilities.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin]




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


But that's the thing. Climate change is a LONG ways from any sort of consensus. It doesn't compare to say, the health risks of tobacco, which have a direct, repeatable, cause/effect relationship. It is merely the OPINION of this organization that people should adhere to such beliefs. Big difference.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
Why do I get the feeling I am shooting at a moving target here?

I am going to try and condense this debate to some major points, since we seem to have gotten slightly off topic on several details. The article referenced is a blog, but the news report it is based on is at www.usatoday.com...

It starts with this paragraph:

Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living "green" your business.
Now to be sure we don't delve off into different topics again, I define 'going green' as more than throwing trash into trash bins instead of on the ground, and more than refusing to allow a factory to spew tons of hydrochloric acid into the atmosphere. Those are wise moves that harm no one (except those who would harm society) and help everyone. But when I hear the term 'go green', I think of regulations that leave truck drivers out in the cold, literally, because they can't run a heater to keep from freezing to death. I think of a segment of the economy based on buying and selling carbon credits in order to be able to participate in the real economy. I think of cars that are inadequate and underpowered, little more than death traps dressed in flimsy skins of fiberglass.

You may disagree with me about what the term 'going green' means. If so, fine. But in my interpretation of the phrase, this is an ominous opening paragraph.

To continue:

"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is not the view of the writer, as could possibly be attributed to the excerpt above. These are the words of the associate president of Yale University's psychology department. He is not speaking of conveying information, but of changing behaviors and attitudes.

Every so often, I hear of a story where a church offers a program to 're-educate' gay people. As others are, I am horrified by the thought of re-education. Yet here we have an associate president of a major university stating he wants to and can do just that, proudly. What's the difference?

I know, I know, 'science'. But you seem to have little understanding of what true science is. It is a series of experiments and conclusions, most of them wrong, that are constantly subjected to new evidence. Some theories stay around for quite a while before they are proven wrong, others fail at the first ray of examination, and still others endure unendingly. The latter is the case because those theories have undergone all of the known evidence and survived as true.

When debating Global Warming, it becomes obvious that there is no 'consensus', because by definition a consensus would indicate a lack of opposition and therefore a lack of debate. Instead, we have one of those theories which is still subject to observed phenomena and evidence. Yet, due to the financial incentives by those in powerful positions, this particular theory is being held exempt from examination in light of any dissenting evidence. Therefore, the entire theory must either be thrown out and restated anew, or be allowed to undergo scrutiny without regard to the political leanings of any evidence presented. Anything else is bad science.

Now, should psychologists become involved, with a stated objective to change behavior and attitude, that does not indicate a concern for the people receiving this 'information' (translation: re-education), because the theory being presented as correct is unscientific by definition due to its corruption by socio-political forces. Rather, I believe it indicates a desire for wealth. Global Warming has been used by quite a few of the upper-income class to make a hefty profit, and exactly what would give me cause to think that Alan Kazdin is any less desirous of wealth?

In short, your argument is flawed, as evidenced by the very words of the ones we are debating. There is much more to this than a simple desire to disseminate information effectively.

TheRedneck extra DIV



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
But that's the thing. Climate change is a LONG ways from any sort of consensus. It doesn't compare to say, the health risks of tobacco, which have a direct, repeatable, cause/effect relationship. It is merely the OPINION of this organization that people should adhere to such beliefs. Big difference.


Sorry, dude, I can't be bothered talking about that. It is irrelevant to the topic, and rather tedious. I'm sure you can find a thread elsewhere to show your expansive knowledge of climate science.

If you can show me that the numerous scientific organisations, the UN, most governments across the world are not saying this is a pressing issue, I could see why psychologists would perhaps be wrong to be working on this issue.

If not, I'm sure another thread would be chuffed to have your input.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


lol But it IS the subject! The re-education of the masses to accept an ideological belief! But because you happily tug your forelock at any large organization, arguments otherwise are invalid??? Wow. That's some arrogance. I suppose, then, this thread should be closed, in your opinion? No debate, burn the unbelievers, story's over, you can all go home now?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I'm sorry but anyone who takes the position that the UN is an arbiter of truth looses all credibility with me. The UN is now the largest international criminal organization extant. They have absolutly no reason for existance except to further the monetary gains of its eliteist delegates. They solve ZERO problems and cause things to fester rather than heal!


Zindo



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Why do I get the feeling I am shooting at a moving target here?


A mirror?


I am going to try and condense this debate to some major points, since we seem to have gotten slightly off topic on several details. The article referenced is a blog, but the news report it is based on is at www.usatoday.com...

It starts with this paragraph:

Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living "green" your business.


Aye, a news reporter said that.


Now to be sure we don't delve off into different topics again, I define 'going green' as more than throwing trash into trash bins instead of on the ground, and more than refusing to allow a factory to spew tons of hydrochloric acid into the atmosphere. Those are wise moves that harm no one (except those who would harm society) and help everyone. But when I hear the term 'go green', I think of regulations that leave truck drivers out in the cold, literally, because they can't run a heater to keep from freezing to death. I think of a segment of the economy based on buying and selling carbon credits in order to be able to participate in the real economy. I think of cars that are inadequate and underpowered, little more than death traps dressed in flimsy skins of fiberglass.

You may disagree with me about what the term 'going green' means. If so, fine. But in my interpretation of the phrase, this is an ominous opening paragraph.


I might have missed something as my attention sadly waned, but hopefully you said something about planting trees and tiptoeing through tulips.


To continue:

"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is not the view of the writer, as could possibly be attributed to the excerpt above. These are the words of the associate president of Yale University's psychology department. He is not speaking of conveying information, but of changing behaviors and attitudes.


"We know what messages will work and which will not"


Every so often, I hear of a story where a church offers a program to 're-educate' gay people. As others are, I am horrified by the thought of re-education. Yet here we have an associate president of a major university stating he wants to and can do just that, proudly. What's the difference?


Because there is no evidence that such 're-education' works? That being gay actually isn't a contemporary social problem?

We're not talking about a taking people who don't recycle plastics into organised re-education schemes. I'm sure such an idea sounds rather scary.



"We have vays of making you put glass into the recycling box!"


I know, I know, 'science'. But you seem to have little understanding of what true science is.


Again, quit the diversion. It's tedious.


Now, should psychologists become involved, with a stated objective to change behavior and attitude, that does not indicate a concern for the people receiving this 'information' (translation: re-education), because the theory being presented as correct is unscientific by definition due to its corruption by socio-political forces. Rather, I believe it indicates a desire for wealth. Global Warming has been used by quite a few of the upper-income class to make a hefty profit, and exactly what would give me cause to think that Alan Kazdin is any less desirous of wealth?


Psychologists are already involved. They are currently in the deep south with tazers hunting rednecks for re-education.


In short, your argument is flawed, as evidenced by the very words of the ones we are debating. There is much more to this than a simple desire to disseminate information effectively.

TheRedneck


Of course, but the psychologists are interested in how to convey messages/information as effectively as possible. They are applying their efforts and knowledge to a relevant contemporary concern.

The fact that a few ideologues have decided that Al Gore and science sucks 'cos they tell them stuff they don't like, doesn't really outweigh the fact that all the relevant scientific and international organisations, and governments across the world accept it is a concern for human society.


[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin] extra DIV



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
lol But it IS the subject! The re-education of the masses to accept an ideological belief! But because you happily tug your forelock at any large organization, arguments otherwise are invalid??? Wow. That's some arrogance. I suppose, then, this thread should be closed, in your opinion? No debate, burn the unbelievers, story's over, you can all go home now?


Eh? So the thread is about whether climate change is anthropogenic? Apparently it's also about why science sucks.

I thought it was about psychologists being unethical ("fraud and malpractice") by doing their job.

Oh well, I guess I'm in the wrong thread.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It's about them being unethical because they have stated they are going to basically reeducate people in a way that alters their perception of the world and their beliefs about the world based on something that IS NOT SCIENCE. So yes, the debate of the validity of what is being forced upon others by these psychologist is certainly central to the subject. That is what is unethical. You're just more interested in acting like an ass and being witty than discussing the issue. Hello ignore, so I can go on discussing this without further distractions. Sad really, because I have seen you contribute to discussion at times.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
Forgive me for boring you mel. Here all this time I thought you were interested in a factual discussion...

You put up a very difficult argument to refute. Personal attacks, coupled with advice to not take them personally. Offhand disregard for posts. Blatant condescension. Continual diversion. Very good!

Unfortunately, you have not succeeded in your attempts to anger me. Sorry about that. I actually think you probably make one heck of a psychologist.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You're just more interested in acting like an ass and being witty than discussing the issue. Hello ignore, so I can go on discussing this without further distractions. Sad really, because I have seen you contribute to discussion at times.


I did a study and found that my degree of asshatedness is directly proportional to the degree of obfuscation I'm exposed to. T'wasn't very scientific, though, more anecdotal.

Again, the issue here is whether psychologists are unethical to react to concerns in human society.


More than 22,000 people were surveyed in 21 countries and the results show a great deal of agreement on the issue.

The survey is published a day after 150 countries met at the United Nations to discuss climate change.

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The issue is accepted as a concern by the majority of the public in this poll.


Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?

Fergus W.M. Brown, CPE, UCLAN, Preston, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
James D. Annan, FRCGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan

An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1. The claim that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing is found to be false in our survey. However, there remains substantial disagreement about the magnitude of its impacts. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.

climatesci.org...

Human impacts on climate change are well-accepted in this poll of the climate science community. It is a concern in the scientific community.


1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association

en.wikipedia.org...

All major relevant scientific organisations accept it is a concern.

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists finally got the point..

But because a few people say climate science isn't science, that Al Gore is fat, and that science sucks, psychologists should ignore a contemporary human issue.

Okie doke.






[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Forgive me for boring you mel. Here all this time I thought you were interested in a factual discussion...


I don't particularly care to discuss whether climate change is anthropogenic, whether climate science is science. It actually does bore me. I learn from experience, and I know when it's not worth it, when it's not the main issue, when I could be doing something more pleasurable - like chewing my own arm off.


You put up a very difficult argument to refute. Personal attacks, coupled with advice to not take them personally. Offhand disregard for posts. Blatant condescension. Continual diversion. Very good!


I'll sadly put my hands up to all the rest in varying degrees, but diversion - no way. I've stuck close to the issue from my very first post.


Unfortunately, you have not succeeded in your attempts to anger me. Sorry about that. I actually think you probably make one heck of a psychologist.


TheRedneck


Not trying to anger you. Trying to get you to stick to the issue.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


When you walk into a store it is set up just so; aisles, music, lighting; to get you to buy more things. When you watch a tv commercial it uses very cunning ways to convince you that you NEED that product. When you listen to politicians they structure their words very carefully in order to make you feel like you need THEM to save you from your woes in life.

Psychology is all around us. This isn't medical malpractice. It's what psychologists DO. It's their job to figure out the way people think, why they think that way, and how to change it.

I understand that you may feel threatened when an article is saying that there is a coming campaign to make you want to feel like it's your duty to help make the Earth better. To me it does sounds just like anything else we are brainwashed with on a daily basis. You don't think the government uses psychology to get us to support their wars? Do you not think they use psychology to convince us that taking away our freedoms is a good thing? Don't you have a problem with that too? Or is it just when they want to convince you to do some good for EVERYONE. Not just your neighbors or friends, yourself, or family. But everyone, in other countries, other states, from other religions. Suddenly that bothers you?

I don't think using psychology to get us to treat our Earth better is the way to go about it at all. But my question is why do people not care at all about what we ARE doing to the Earth?

This has nothing to do with whether or not humans have an effect on global warming/climate change or whatever. I could really care less about that. I do know, however, that the air we breath, the waters we swim in, and the soil we farm in is littered with toxins and waste and that can't be good for anybody.

Yeah, there is most likely a coming climate change and no one really seems to be able to agree when the major effects will come and even if the whole thing is a farse does that give us an excuse to stay on our current course?

"Well, global warming isn't cause by humans so I'm going to dump this antifreeze in the sewers knowing it goes straight to the river. It's not like that will have anything to do with global warming it will just pollute the river I like to swim and fish in." Where's the logic?





[edit on 11-9-2008 by nunya13]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
I know that was directed at Zindo, but mind if I mention a couple points?


Psychology is all around us. This isn't medical malpractice. It's what psychologists DO. It's their job to figure out the way people think, why they think that way, and how to change it.

The concern here is not whether we buy that new HDTV set, or if we choose Jif over the generic peanut butter. There are serious consequences to messing around with the planet's control mechanisms, especially when we don't know (or don't care because there's no money in it) how they all work.

'Going green' is not picking up litter. It's much more than that, and much more insidious. Yes, we should pick up litter. Yes we should keep our tires inflated. Yes we should plant trees. No one here is saying we shouldn't. I am more worried personally about what will happen if we start changing the whole economy around to compensate for a CO2 increase that is needed to trigger something else (like accelerated plant growth).


"Well, global warming isn't cause by humans so I'm going to dump this antifreeze in the sewers knowing it goes straight to the river. It's not like that will have anything to do with global warming it will just pollute the river I like to swim and fish in." Where's the logic?

That contains no logic, obviously. That is not the concern here.

All I can say is, there is no Captain Planet. And there are also no evildoers who love living in trash. This is science captured, caged, and negated by the ptb in order to make money. Now with mind control!

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
I don't think using psychology to get us to treat our Earth better is the way to go about it at all.


This is the thing what gets me. We have the potential for an interesting discussion, but like most discussions here, it just appears to tend towards the crusty, tedious, and circular discussions of worn-out topics.

So, rather than discussing whether climate change is anthropogenic, whether climate science is 'real' science, whether Al Gore's vibrator uses environmentally friendly batteries...

Perhaps we might want to discuss something novel. Shocking! From a psychologists point of view, this is a suitable area of study. As I clearly illustrated above, it is a concern in all the relevant areas - public, scientific, and also governmental. One of the remits of the APA is to work to better public welfare. If psychologists ignored it, they would consider it to be irresponsible. I can't see how people can really question that angle. However, a more fundamental issue:

Is it ethical for psychologists to be studying methods to help change people's behaviour?

Enviromental. Health. Social. etc.

TBH, don't know if I can be bothered now, but I think that's a more interesting and relevent discussion. Perhaps other people might care. My opinion, in sum, of course it is - as long as it is not highly invasive, subliminal, unethical. Especially when it is a relevent contemporary issue.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I guess I never understood that the reduction of CO2 could possibly be a bad thing. I do see how that could be possible, however, the amount of CO2 we pump into the air is a relatively new phenomena. It has been only around a hundred years (give or take) since the industrial age which resulted in factories, cars, etc. that pump a lot of CO2 into the air. Before this time, the plant life on Earth had absolutely no problem thriving and, in fact, there is a heck of a lot less of it now than there ever was once the industrial revolution started.

So we got rid of a vast majority of the plant life whether it be due to building cities or cutting down rain forests but we have increased our CO2 production. I personally would think that would throw off the balance.

Since the Earth has existed (not counting the industrial revolution) there has been far more plant life than humans yet they managed to thrive.

The issue now, is that we have greatly reduced plant life on the Earth and have increase CO2 production so can we safely assume that the amount of plant life that there still is is sufficient enough to absorb the excess CO2? I'm not a scientist so I don't know, but I would assume the answer to be no.

It is not the responsibility of humans to create CO2 for plants to be able to live. If that was the case, then plants would have started dying off far before humans ever inhabited the planet (assuming there WAS a period where there were no humans on the planet at all, but that's another matter entirely).

So this makes me wonder if we should even be talking about cutting back CO2 emissions. What if we've missed the point entirely? What if what we need to be focusing on is cutting back on our deforestation? Wouldn't this make more sense and keep everyone happy?

I mean, of course we shouldn't keep pumping untold amounts of toxins and CO2 into the air. That's not good for anyone in high levels. But maybe we don't have to cut it out entirely or have such a drastic reduction that it affects these companies in a negative way financially. What if it's two pronged?

Maybe we should be focusing on cutting back on our deforestation so that we don't need to worry so much about carbon production other than it being strictly on a level that has to due with health issues. Not one that could potentially have dire consequences for all of human life in regards to the health of the planet.

But I really don't understand how cutting back CO2 levels could have a negative effect on the planet being as, as I have said, nothing has happened in the last millions of years when there wasn't this vast amount of CO2 in the air.

People breath in Oxygen and exhale CO2. Trees breath in the CO2 and exhale the Oxygen. It's a cycle. So now, not only do we have a drastically increased human population, we have a drastically increased production of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we've drastically reduced the plant population. Plants can only breath in so much CO2 just like humans can only breath in so much oxygen. I just don't think there is anyway that there could be a continued balance. Oxygen can be fatal at extremely high levels to humans and plants alike. Wouldn't you think the reverse could be true also regarding CO2?

I definitely welcome you to point out any flaws in my (supposed
) logic. Like I said, I'm not scientist. I'm just using the knowledge that I know of to come to these conclusions that I have.

edit: typo

[edit on 12-9-2008 by nunya13]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

TBH, don't know if I can be bothered now, but I think that's a more interesting and relevent discussion. Perhaps other people might care. My opinion, in sum, of course it is - as long as it is not highly invasive, subliminal, unethical. Especially when it is a relevent contemporary issue.



That's the thing. The article seems to explain that this psychological study isn't one solely based on getting more knowledge in the why some people have more of a regard, or lack thereof, for nature than others. It seems that the article is putting forth the idea that they plan on launching some sort of psychological campaign to get people to change their attitudes and actions.

While I fully understand the need for this, if you are one who thinks that this is a pressing issue that needs to be immediately dealt with, as I do, I don't think that it's right for people to be exposed to this sort of campaign without their consent.

It do think it is unethical to preform mass psychology on people. When I said that I don't think that psychology is the way to go about this I meant that there are other ways that are less...devious (for lack of a better word) that we can go about this.

You can change people's attitudes if you convince them in a rational matter with facts that this is, indeed, an issue that we all need to be aware of. That we all need to do our part to either slow down or stop what is happening.

The reality is that there are people, as we all know, that don't believe this is a pressing issue or even an issue at all. I think it is entirely unethical to convince these people using psychology that it IS an issue they need to care about. Instead, these people should be presented with cold, hard, reliable facts that they can't ignore. And if they still continue to do so, well, there's not much anyone can do about it. We shouldn't have to start brainwashing people to get them to care about the state of our planet.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by nunya13]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
You make some very apt points there. Logical thinking is not the sole domain of someone who identifies themselves as a 'scientist', as you have shown.


My last post was made in a hurry, as I had some personal matters come up while I was composing it. So the example was quick and without explanation, although it wasn't meant to be as much factual as it was inspirational.

I completely agree with you on deforestation being a much worse problem that CO2 levels. Yet, in this thread, ProfEmeritus and myself gave out a call to anyone to join us in planting some trees. You can see the exchange about halfway down the page. You can also see there was no response.

To be honest, I doubt trees alone are responsible for the majority of CO2 utilization in the plant kingdom. Anything green - grass, bushes, vines, weeds, gardens, etc. - will absorb CO2 from the air. These smaller plants typically also grow faster, meaning they need to absorb more CO2 compared to their size than trees.

The main point, however, is that we have much to learn, both in the scientific realm and in the public eye, about the environment before we are able to make such long-term predictions with any accuracy (negating the need for name changes, such as "Global Warming" -> "Climate Change"). With that lack of complete information in mind, the proposal that psychological opinion control needs to be welcomed to convince people of the present thinking of some scientists is asinine.

Planting a tree, on the other hand, is responsible behavior.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
True. We can't change things by convincing people to THINK a certain way. Only to ACT a certain way.

But I think you make a good point and obviously maybe the problem is that they are trying to get us to focus on this one tiny little aspect of climate change and that is CO2 emissions. Obviously this is a very small spoke in the cog and simply reducing CO2 emissions won't really change a damn thing.

I'm of the mind that CO2 has nothing to really do with anything in the long run. It's every thing else we are doing (or not doing) to this planet that matters. These things may not be bringing on climate change but they certainly will and do have an effect on the quality of life here on this planet.

I'm sure I don't have to lay the issues out for you. but I think that these are the things we need to focus on and quit quibbling over CO2 emission: too bring on global warming, or not to bring on global warming.

By focusing on this side of it alone we are ignoring all the other things that we could be doing RIGHT NOW that don't really cost anybody a thing and won't bring down the economy at all. In fact, some of these things could actually boost the economy by creating new industries and therefore creating new jobs.

Here's how I think of it:

Think of how long people have lived on this planet. In the last, say, couple hundred years alone do we actually see a definite mark made on the planet. This has a lot more to do with way of life, not how many people are living on Earth (i.e., not really anything to do with population) When you talk about civilizations that lived just one thousand years ago there's no real mark to be seen. They used renewable, biodegradable materials in every aspect of their life.

Imagine a thousand years from now. They won't have to search at all for remnants of our civilization and what life was like. No. Instead they will be walking around in our filth trying to figure out how to get rid of it all (assuming they have become much more friendly to the Earth than we have).



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
I believe we are on the same track as far as our thinking on Global Warming. The only time I get personally involved is when someone starts mentioning taxation as the way to end a harmless, invisible gas that is essential for life to exist. That worries me on two fronts: it is an obvious scam to scare the people into paying more to the powers that be, and should we actually try to take action to end this phantom menace, I have no doubt we would somehow mess things up worse than they are.


Think of how long people have lived on this planet. In the last, say, couple hundred years alone do we actually see a definite mark made on the planet. This has a lot more to do with way of life, not how many people are living on Earth (i.e., not really anything to do with population) When you talk about civilizations that lived just one thousand years ago there's no real mark to be seen. They used renewable, biodegradable materials in every aspect of their life.

I don't really think we're having an unreasonable effect on the planet. Every life form has its own effect, which if left unchecked could be disastrous. An oak tree shades the ground, making it harder for smaller plant life to thrive in the reduced sunlight. It cools the air through water perspiration. It will grow to strangle other trees around it whenever possible. It uses CO2 and releases O2, which is a corrosive gas that would have much more disastrous consequences for it than an excess of CO2 has for us in excess. A fox will kill prey regardless of the amount of prey available, even if such will later lead to its starvation. It will fertilize the ground with its waste, even if such overfertilizes and stunts plant life in that spot.

We have an effect on our environment as well. These effects are balanced out by other natural mechanisms in all but the more extreme cases (such as wholesale exhaust of true pollutants and massive deforestation). At one time in the recent past, I believe we were on the road to extreme pollution. But regulations on non-native materials have corrected the vast majority of that little problem.


Imagine a thousand years from now. They won't have to search at all for remnants of our civilization and what life was like. No. Instead they will be walking around in our filth trying to figure out how to get rid of it all (assuming they have become much more friendly to the Earth than we have).

I keep hearing this, but then I think about how earlier peoples used first wood for heat, then coal, with no knowledge or concern over sulfur emissions from such. The problem with these emissions have been greatly exaggerated by population, but we have already responded by limiting the emissions of truly harmful chemicals from combustion.

I see mankind advancing in a much different direction. I do see doom and gloom in the short term, but I also see a resurgence of the population, hopefully this next time with more wisdom that we presently possess. If we can advance beyond the petty squabbles and deceptions that plague us today, then we will not be wading through our own garbage, and neither will we be listening to politicians with a lustful insatiable greed. Instead, we will be living as purely free, self-sufficient individuals in a more harmonious accord with both nature and each other.

At least, that's what I try to dream of... some days I am moderately successful.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join