Earth Hour 2009 - March 28, 2009

[AllMenAreIslands]

Here's a message I just received at work. (I work at an Ontario Courthouse.) This year's campaign is even more sickening than last year's. "See the world in a whole new light"???? In darkness, in other words. Like it used to be before there was electricity.

We are pleased to let you know that the Government of Ontario is once again participating in Earth Hour. This year, Earth Hour takes place on Saturday, March 28 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Now in its third year, this initiative has grown from a local neighbourhood event in Sydney, Australia, into a worldwide phenomenon. Earth Hour provides a simple opportunity not only for the government, but for all Ontarians to show their commitment to the environment.

We will again be turning off as many lights as we can in government buildings: over 50 key government buildings will be darkened for Earth Hour, with the exception of lights that must stay on due to safety or other considerations. We are also asking the Legislative Assembly and the landlords of the buildings where we rent space to take part.

We all know that energy conservation plays a key role in the fight against climate change. Through the ThinkGreen initiative, the OPS is becoming greener every day. The OPS Green Office is leading the way, with conservation efforts that reduce our energy consumption and help our organization become an environmentally friendly consumer.

We encourage all OPS employees to join millions around the world on March 28 at 8:30 p.m., and turn off your lights at home for Earth Hour. Help us see the world in a whole new light.

To find out more about the government’s participation, please visit the OPS Green Office site. And for more information about Earth Hour, please visit www.earthhour.org.

Thank you for your ongoing support and commitment.

Dalton McGuinty

Premier

Shelly Jamieson

Secretary of the Cabinet

What have you seen or heard in connection with Earth Hour? Ever wonder why they don't do this at 12 noon on a weekday?

[SD26]

Radicals are just trying to get people used to when they wreck the advancements that men have developed.

[Zip]

Looks like I'll be turning on all the lights in my house again. I think I'll even leave the Xmas lights up till after the 28th.

Let the light or reason and progress shine!!!

Hm, should do that for reasons harvest, make a big $ sign in my front yard.

[Maximus]

Looks like I'll be turning on all the lights in my house again.

Same here. That was my first thought when I saw that stupid Esurance commercial.

[skap35]

Same here. That was my first thought when I saw that stupid Esurance commercial.

I remember last year's earth hour when Google turned it's site to a black background. That was so annoying. Needless to say, I will have all 9 of my power-sucking computers running on that day as well as every single light in my house!

[The Wrath]

However silly the idea of "earth hour" is, it's even stupider to intentionally use more energy than you have a use for, just for the sake of making a statement. Firstly, because no one will know about it but you. Secondly, it will cause you to pay more money to your energy company. Thirdly, it's nihilistic to use up energy just for the sake of pissing people off. I disagree with PETA's wacko agenda, but I'm not gonna go out and kill squirrels just to make a point.

[Zip]

However silly the idea of "earth hour" is, it's even stupider to intentionally use more energy than you have a use for, just for the sake of making a statement. Firstly, because no one will know about it but you. Secondly, it will cause you to pay more money to your energy company. Thirdly, it's nihilistic to use up energy just for the sake of pissing people off. I disagree with PETA's wacko agenda, but I'm not gonna go out and kill squirrels just to make a point.

You heard it here first folks, evil, anti-man anti progression ideas are not worth ridiculing to make a statement. Just let the loonies continue to run the asylum, what possible harm could come of that...

Edited March 11, 2009 by Zip

[The Wrath]

I frequently seem to find myself defending people I disagree with, because I can't stand the way their positions are strawmanned on this board. So, here I go defending the environmentalists:

Anti-man? Based on what? If you listen to enviro rhetoric, they are invariably concerned with how our treatment of the environment will ultimately impact our ability to continue living on this planet. Whether or not they're right isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing "anti-man" about what they are saying, except in the most extreme cases like the ELF. Al Gore may be a blowhard, but he and the people who follow him truly believe that their ideas will end up saving mankind. However mistaken their views may be, to call them "anti-man" is the worst kind of strawman. You aren't differentiating between people who think we should conserve energy (i.e. Al Gore) and people who, say, burn down ski condos because they object to anything that human beings do that disrupts nature (i.e. the ELF).

And you aren't "making a statement" by turning on all your lights. No one will know about it but you. Regardless of whether or not the doom and gloom preached by Al Gore and his cronies is legitimate, are you really going to argue that using more energy than you can legitimately make use of is not having an unnecessarily negative effect on...something? For all the criticism that Al Gore and his ilk get for being religious fanatics, there is nothing less fanatic about refusing to recognize that energy usage has any negative impact, whatsoever, on the environment and, therefore, our ability to live comfortably in it. You are creating a false dichotomy, and then choosing the side that is more palatable to you. Why not reject the doom and gloom preached by Gore and his cronies, but accept that there is an ultimate limit to the earth's ability to support human life, and admit that it should not be needlessly wasted?

[Thales]

IIRC, when they had this event last year, power usage in the UK and Australia went up. Is this a form of silent protest?

Funny how leftists never seem to remember those things. Convenient.

I frequently seem to find myself defending people I disagree with, because I can't stand the way their positions are strawmanned on this board. So, here I go defending the environmentalists:

Anti-man? Based on what? If you listen to enviro rhetoric, they are invariably concerned with how our treatment of the environment will ultimately impact our ability to continue living on this planet. Whether or not they're right isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing "anti-man" about what they are saying, except in the most extreme cases like the ELF.

It is absolutely anti-man. The fact that they fly in the face of science and our survival demonstrates this. Environmentalists are not remotely logical if they are serious about solving "problems". That alone should tell you that they have another agenda.

To be sure, many people are duped by environmentalism, but they aren't the ones spear heading the movement. The dupes are in the majority, but they aren't captaining the environmental ship.

[Zip]

I frequently seem to find myself defending people I disagree with, because I can't stand the way their positions are strawmanned on this board. So, here I go defending the environmentalists:

Anti-man? Based on what? If you listen to enviro rhetoric, they are invariably concerned with how our treatment of the environment will ultimately impact our ability to continue living on this planet. Whether or not they're right isn't the point. The point is that there is nothing "anti-man" about what they are saying, except in the most extreme cases like the ELF. Al Gore may be a blowhard, but he and the people who follow him truly believe that their ideas will end up saving mankind. However mistaken their views may be, to call them "anti-man" is the worst kind of strawman. You aren't differentiating between people who think we should conserve energy (i.e. Al Gore) and people who, say, burn down ski condos because they object to anything that human beings do that disrupts nature (i.e. the ELF).

Ask any environmentalist where they stand on using nuclear power. The cheapest, cleanest source of energy man has yet devised. They willfully ignore the truth about nuclear power, they won't condone its use because the radioactive byproducts are harmful to the environment, never mind that there are ways to dispose of it safely, never mind that the green technologies haven't a hope in hell of replacing the amount of power we humans currently need much less what we will need.

And you are right I put the lunatic fringe right in there with Al gore, and the environmentalists that spike trees with nails. The ones that protest seal hunting too. Talk about a sustainable industry, the seal hunt has been going on for over 400 years. By the way it is not a coincidence that when the seal hunt was stopped the cod stocks on the east coast were decimated, but that doesn't matter either. All those people on the east coast of Canada and the US that lost their livelihoods can thank the non-lunatic enviro's for their anti-man anti-thought ideals.

And you aren't "making a statement" by turning on all your lights. No one will know about it but you. Regardless of whether or not the doom and gloom preached by Al Gore and his cronies is legitimate, are you really going to argue that using more energy than you can legitimately make use of is not having an unnecessarily negative effect on...something?

I disagree, I made the statement loud and clear last year when I explained what I was doing to my daughters. And when they threw up the environmentalists straw man when the conversation was done and they were at least thinking about the other side of the coin that was a statement worth making.

For all the criticism that Al Gore and his ilk get for being religious fanatics, there is nothing less fanatic about refusing to recognize that energy usage has any negative impact, whatsoever, on the environment and, therefore, our ability to live comfortably in it. You are creating a false dichotomy, and then choosing the side that is more palatable to you. Why not reject the doom and gloom preached by Gore and his cronies, but accept that there is an ultimate limit to the earth's ability to support human life, and admit that it should not be needlessly wasted?

I don't accept your point, the only way we as a species will ever reach the limit of human life that this planet is able to sustain is if we stop producing, stop thinking, stop using, developing and creating.

That is really what they want us all to do to stop using power. Power is what has enabled us to populate every corner of this globe. Power has made it possible for there to be 6 billion of us (and counting). And the production of cheaper and better power is what will win the environment a reprieve, not sitting in the dark staring at each other like cavemen.

Give no quarter. Produce, use, develop, and never stop.

[D'kian]

Isn't it a conspiracy to bankrupt electric utilities?

[The Wrath]

I don't accept your point, the only way we as a species will ever reach the limit of human life that this planet is able to sustain is if we stop producing, stop thinking, stop using, developing and creating.

Right, because the earth has an infinite amount of natural resources. Got it.

This is a ridiculous statement. In some ultimate sense, there has to be a limit to the ability of the earth to support life. You see, there's this pesky thing called the 2nd law of thermodynamics that pretty much necessitates it.

That is really what they want us all to do to stop using power.

So, Al Gore wants us to stop using all electric appliances. Got it.

Power is what has enabled us to populate every corner of this globe. Power has made it possible for there to be 6 billion of us (and counting). And the production of cheaper and better power is what will win the environment a reprieve, not sitting in the dark staring at each other like cavemen.

So environmentalists all want us to go back to living in caves around camp fires. Got it.

You make all these absurd, childish claims, yet you will not be able to find a single quote by a mainstream environmentalist to support any of them. Sure, you can find ELF statements to that effect. You will not find anything Al Gore has said that equates to wanting human beings to go back and live in caves.

The fact that they fly in the face of science...

This argument does not work when environmentalists use it. It does not work when you use it.

You can't just say that someone else's theory "flies in the face of science" and dismiss it out of hand. Especially when there is still substantial debate on the topic...especially if you don't (as I suspect) have some sort of background in atmospheric sciences.

[TheEgoist]

The Wrath, Al Gore is anti-man. He bemoans the Earth's population as a crisis. He wishes it weren't so that 6 billion people were alive. He buys into one of the most anti-human theories of the past 300 years, Malthusian epidemic theory.

Gore blames human life, human progress as the sole source for any change in the climate. This is such an absurd claim that it need not be refuted with science. It is simply the ramblings of a bitter man.

Does Gore regret that humans ever existed? No. That isn't the point. He wants humans to live less than modern lives. Gore and his ilk are not about saving the human race but destroying human technology. They are the Luddites of the 21st century.

Their opposition to a large population, their hatred of technology and their disregard for science pit them against human existence, human progress.

[Thales]

This argument does not work when environmentalists use it. It does not work when you use it.

The truth should be spoken, however.

You can't just say that someone else's theory "flies in the face of science" and dismiss it out of hand.

Especially when there is still substantial debate on the topic...especially if you don't (as I suspect) have some sort of background in atmospheric sciences.

That's a very second handed approach and indicates someone who has never studied these issues. I've studied the issues extensively, so I know of what I speak. Also, environmentalism includes much more than "global warming".

No, there really isn't substantial debate among real scientists over the majority of environmental fear scenarios.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Now I've got even more reasons to put on the lights. The fact is, it isn't only oneself who knows, if one lives near any other people.

I do find it very interesting that the usage of power went up last time. That could be because shutting it off and turning it on again uses more power. Perhaps it's not so much that lots of people turned on extra lights, but just the fact of so many people turning back on their lights at the same time caused more energy to be consumed than when everyone behaves normally.

What negative impact does our energy usage have on the environment, Wrath? Why is it a negative impact, rather than simply an impact? Instead of assuming the impact is a negative one, how about considering what use the impact, if any, has to offer? Perhaps the added amount of CO2 is actually a necessary precursor to being able to grow even more food, for example in areas that are drought-stricken. Those places need water and CO2 as much if not more than places with more precipitation.

Besides, in our developed societies we live in climate-controlled environments, inside our homes and our workplaces. That's what we have already built. We aren't part of the food chain the way we used to be either, and thank our ancestors for that. We create food chains that we enjoy eating, and our bodies are generally NOT returned directly to the soil, but are rather dealt with in all manner of ways at death. So all this blah-blah about what's "good for the environment" is simply going along with the idea that the environment in its natural state is something worth preserving. Which, if you think it is, is certainly your prerogative to act upon, by buying a piece of property and proceeding to do nothing with it. Call it Earth Acre, or something. Or performance art.

Point is, while the Earth's resources are finite, and there's no doubt about it on a sheer mathematical scale, the amount of resources available to mankind is not restricted to those available on Earth. Even if it were, at this point in our history we've actually managed to develop and utilize such a minute percentage of the total available just on Earth that it's not worth considering the "finiteness" of the totality. We have barely scratched the first few feet, and the Earth is miles thick.

It is likely that nuclear is simply another stepping stone for power generation, which in due course will be replaced by something even cleaner, more plentiful and requiring even less acreage to produce. I'm thinking of geo-thermal, of course. But what I do know is that using windmills and solar panels at this stage of their development represents a step backwards for industry. Perhaps these are viable methods for hermits, who are willing to keep their power requirements extremely low.

Using energy as desired ought not to still be something we have to think about. Creation of endless supplies of energy is within our grasp already in the form of nuclear power. The hysteria over cost/cleanliness of oil or coal is out of proportion to the actual pollution values. Compared with earlier technologies like animal power the waste product of which is excretia, everywhere, that is, oil and coal are very much cleaner.

The concern about the waste matter from nuclear power has been purposely blown out of proportion in order to throw a spanner in the nuclear power industry's progress. This concern is also heedless of the truth about life - one entity's waste is another's food. There is a valuable use for the waste matter from nuclear power - just let the scientists who are keen to unlock that mystery get on with their work, and let whoever wants to invest in the possibility do so. Alot of companies make a lot of money selling us everyday products like cleaners and booze and computers and such, and they throw away billions trying to line extend their successful products, which acts to undermine and kill their golden cows. They simply need to learn of some other great industries they could invest in, where there's a better chance to underwrite great new discoveries.

The environmentalists ARE mankind-hating. Anyone who could proffer the idea of shutting OFF all the lights, even for an hour, to somehow "save the planet" or even more stupidly, to "fight climate change," can't honestly understand the enormity of what they are doing. They are supporting punching civilzation's lights out. Is there any way to prove that turning off the lights is worse for the environment? Only if you value having the ability to have the lights on in the first place.

Unfortunately, the intent of Earth Hour doesn't appear to be to make people appreciate electricity, but rather to get them used to doing without it. And that IS a step way backwards.

[utabintarbo]

I wonder if the asshats promoting this stuff will turn of the refrigerators that house their beer.

Probably not.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

You make all these absurd, childish claims, yet you will not be able to find a single quote by a mainstream environmentalist to support any of them. Sure, you can find ELF statements to that effect. You will not find anything Al Gore has said that equates to wanting human beings to go back and live in caves.

This reminds me irresistably of the many times in Atlas Shrugged when James Taggart or one of his cronies says "I never said that!" By this logic, Stalin can be defended on the basis of the euphamisms he came up with to defend his slaughter. By this logic, collectivists are actually "well-meaning" because we can't quote a collectivist saying that he condones mass killing and enslavement. By this logic, the ability of a villain to evade or disguise his own villainy adds to his moral worth.

Several facts have already been presented to show that environmentalists are anti-technology, including their stance on nuclear power. As a further example, I would mention the case of electric cars, which have been promoted by countless environmentalists. Any competent scientist or engineer will understand why electric cars produce more emissions than regular cars, and anyone who knows some high-school physics should be capable of understanding it. A while ago, I actually heard someone correctly explain why this is true, and then procede to declare that we should use electric cars anyway, on the basis of environmentalism! He explained this contradiction using a direct appeal to Immanuel Kant (this was a presentation in a philosophy class). I don't know what further evidence of the corruption of environmentalism could be required.

[The Wrath]

Okay, we're going to do a thought experiment.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it has been proven beyond any doubt that man's current level of industrial activity is having a negative impact on the environment, such that the earth will pass the point of no return within a decade and eventually become uninhabitable. For the sake of argument, there is virtually no one who disagrees with this...even you. Is it anti-man to call on people to conserve energy and encourage people to develop more environment-friendly ways of life?

This is how mainstream environmentalists view the situation. Where you disagree with them is on whether or not man-made global warming is proven. But, if you assume that it is proven beyond any doubt, then to call this philosophy anti-man is ridiculous. In fact...I might go so far as to call it...dogmatic.

Now what you're going to do is try to assert that Al Gore, et al are not motivated by wanting to save the earth, but by hatred of capitalism. Well, for some environmentalists that is probably true. Is it for Al Gore? I don't know. But neither do you. You cannot read his thoughts. There are people who generally favor free markets who still believe in man-made global warming and think that steps should be taken to combat it. So you can say Al Gore hates capitalism if you wish, but you'll have a hard time saying the same about Michael Shermer or the editors of The Economist. The worst kind of childish behavior, in any kind of debate, is to assume that you understand your opponent's subconscious motivations.

[The Wrath]

They willfully ignore the truth...

This phrase alone tempts me to disregard everything you say. Virtually anytime this phrase shows up in a debate of any kind, it is an indicator of one thing, and one thing only: dogmatism. Pure, unadulterated dogmatism. When you use this childish phrase, you are not accusing your opponent of being wrong. You are accusing him of being wrong on purpose. It is an accusation fundamentalist Christians use against non-believers. It is an accusation Muslims use against non-Muslims.

It is used frequently on this board, in support of all sorts of things, including capitalism. The problem with this statement is that it clouds the legitimacy of real arguments. If you're arguing with a socialist and you use this phrase, it clouds any rational argument that you make in favor of capitalism. Why? Because, firstly, the rest of the debate is likely to be taken up by him defending himself against the absurd accusation that he somehow "knows he's wrong," but continues to insist on the validity of known falsehoods. Secondly, as I've already said, it is the argument of religious fanatics who know they cannot use rational argumentation to convert their opponents.

Disagree with environmentalists/socialists all you want. But do not presume to know their innermost thoughts. Do not presume that they somehow know that they're wrong, but keep on professing falsehoods out of some inner evil that drives them to destroy value. Because, however ridiculous you may find their arguments, rest assured that they find yours just as ridiculous. And if you use an argument like that, they have every excuse to write you off as a religious nutjob, regardless of whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or an atheist. It makes people who use rational arguments against environmentalism/socialism look stupid, by virtue of their association with you.

Being a human isn't easy. The answers aren't always crystal clear. On any given issue, only one stance can be ultimately correct. But you can't take that metaphysical fact and use it to demonize everyone who disagrees with the truth, because sometimes people simply don't recognize that it is the truth. No one, not even Ayn Rand or Aristotle, had all the answers to everything. By your warped logic, they were willfully ignoring the truth on whatever issues they didn't have completely figured out. Environmentalists don't "willfully ignore the truth." They don't think that what you possess is the truth. You can't both be right. It's up to you to use rational arguments to convince them that they are wrong. Don't expect them to listen, if you engage in that sort of childish behavior.

Edited March 12, 2009 by The Wrath

[The Wrath]

What negative impact does our energy usage have on the environment, Wrath?

It decreases the amount of energy that we have left to use. By all means, use as much energy as you need. But using it in a way that brings no positive benefit to you or anyone else is nihilistic.

And you're right when you say we have barely scratched the surface of the earth's potential to provide us with energy. I think he Kardaschev scale has us at a Type .76 civilization, or something like that. But even if we have just barely scratched the surface...is that a reason to use more energy than we can legitimately make use of...for the sake of using more energy than we can legitimately make use of?

[Maximus]

Obviously, as a form of counterprotest.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

It decreases the amount of energy that we have left to use. By all means, use as much energy as you need. But using it in a way that brings no positive benefit to you or anyone else is nihilistic.

Visibly protesting an irrational event has obvious value. Even if what you do is not visible to others, it can still be a psychological value; an affirmation that you, at least, are not going to give in to irrationality. Either way, the action is not nihilistic.

Also, saying that using energy "decreases the amount of energy left" is true, but irrelevant, given the amount of energy available in our environment (especially if nuclear power were deregulated).

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it has been proven beyond any doubt that man's current level of industrial activity is having a negative impact on the environment, such that the earth will pass the point of no return within a decade and eventually become uninhabitable. For the sake of argument, there is virtually no one who disagrees with this...even you. Is it anti-man to call on people to conserve energy and encourage people to develop more environment-friendly ways of life?

Why should we consider this scenario, since it isn't true (and no competent scientitst would claim it is; not even the ones who believe that warming is occuring and will have negative effects)?

Also, I think you are confusing "willfully ignoring the truth" with arguing against what you actually believe. Holding false beliefs (which the radical environmentalists do) is a result of evasion (failing to objectively identify the facts of reality, when there was a means to do so). So I think your characterization of this phrase is a straw-man. To willfully ignore the truth is not to argue against what one "actually knows" to be true, but to ignore those facts which would lead one to grasp the truth in the first place. Yes, environmentalists do actually believe what they say, but their beliefs are a consequence of their evasion of relevant facts. Or do you believe that evasion itself is not possible?

Finally, it is not necessary to understand the psychology of an individual in order to know that he is evading, or to condemn him morally. If the beliefs of an adult human are radically opposed to reality, and that human has not been subject to any chronic illness or coercion, then evasion is the only explanation.

[The Wrath]

Also, saying that using energy "decreases the amount of energy left" is true, but irrelevant, given the amount of energy available in our environment (especially if nuclear power were deregulated).

It's not irrelevant. A single dollar doesn't matter much to Bill Gates, but it would be stupid and pointless for him to take a dollar bill and and set it on fire.

Why should we consider this scenario, since it isn't true (and no competent scientitst would claim it is; not even the ones who believe that warming is occuring and will have negative effects)?

Because, as Mark Twain said, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. I bring up the scenario, because you are primarily claiming--not that environmentalism is wrong about environmental science--but that the philosophy is anti-man. So I ask you to accept, for the sake of argument, that it is right about environmental science. If it is right about environmental science, it is by definition not anti-man. I'm trying to demonstrate that it's stupid to call it "anti-man," when it's adherents believe their philosophy will actually save the earth's ability to support our civilization.

Also, I think you are confusing "willfully ignoring the truth" with arguing against what you actually believe.

I'm not arguing against what I believe. It is my belief that the arguments you are making are...stupid, immature, childish, dogmatic, etc. I haven't made any arguments for or against environmentalism. Whatever good arguments there are against environmentalism, you aren't making them. Instead, you are resorting to the tried and true religious fanatic tactic of claiming that your opponents "know they're wrong," but stubbornly refuse to recognize the truth because they enjoy being evil.

Holding false beliefs (which the radical environmentalists do) is a result of evasion (failing to objectively identify the facts of reality, when there was a means to do so). So I think your characterization of this phrase is a straw-man.

Amusing that you accuse me of a strawman, when you are the one accusing mainstream environmentalists of wanting to abolish all technology and revert to living in caves.

To willfully ignore the truth is not to argue against what one "actually knows" to be true, but to ignore those facts which would lead one to grasp the truth in the first place.

You don't get what I'm saying. They use the exact same argument against you. It's bullshit when they use it, and it's bullshit when you use it. This isn't Creationism vs. evolution. This is a relatively new scientific field. There isn't anything resembling the sort of consensus that exists on evolution. If anything, the scientific consensus is with the environmentalist movement.

Yes, environmentalists do actually believe what they say, but their beliefs are a consequence of their evasion of relevant facts.

Putting on my viro hat: The scientific consensus is against you. If anyone is evading facts, it is you.

Or do you believe that evasion itself is not possible?

Of course it is. On cut-and-dried issues like whether or not the earth is flat. Also on issues of things like "faith in God," which is an issue, not just of evidence, but of what the role of evidence should be in the formation of beliefs. If two people look at the same evidence (i.e. you and the environmentalists) and disagree, it can mean that you are just evaluating it differently. There probably are some viros who cling to their beliefs when, if they were intellectually honest, they might change their minds. Ditto for people who are opposed to the environmentalist movement. The fact that people on both sides of the issue are capable of intellectual dishonesty does not mean that everyone on either side is guilty of it.

Finally, it is not necessary to understand the psychology of an individual in order to know that he is evading, or to condemn him morally. If the beliefs of an adult human are radically opposed to reality, and that human has not been subject to any chronic illness or coercion, then evasion is the only explanation.

Bullshit. By this stupid logic, meteorologists are guilty of evasion every time they get the forecast wrong.

In fact, that's a good example to use to support my case. Meteorologists will frequently disagree with each other about the forecast...yet they look at the same evidence. Is the side that gets it wrong guilty of evasion? Or being "anti-man" when they erroneously predict a blizzard and tell people they should stay at home, instead of enjoying an evening out on the town?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Because, as Mark Twain said, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. I bring up the scenario, because you are primarily claiming--not that environmentalism is wrong about environmental science--but that the philosophy is anti-man. So I ask you to accept, for the sake of argument, that it is right about environmental science. If it is right about environmental science, it is by definition not anti-man. I'm trying to demonstrate that it's stupid to call it "anti-man," when it's adherents believe their philosophy will actually save the earth's ability to support our civilization.

I have entertained the idea, and I have concluded that it flies in the face of reality. To predict that the Earth will become uninhabitable within a decade due to industrial activity is arbitrary. There is no evidence for it at all.

I'm not arguing against what I believe. [...]

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. What I meant is that when one accuses someone of "evasion" one doesn't mean to say that that person is arguing against what he "knows to be true deep down". One means that the person has acquired false beliefs by ignoring relevant evidence. I myself used to evade constantly. I was a socialist, but refused to consider the practical consequences of socialism, or their implications for the theory. I actually believed in socialism, and that it would be good for the world, but I had come to this belief by evading the facts which refute socialism. Most people throughout history who do bad things actually believe that they are good. They are still guilty of willfully ignoring reality, however.

Putting on my viro hat: The scientific consensus is against you. If anyone is evading facts, it is you.

Nature is not a democracy, and no "consensus" can alter reality. All of my previous appeals to the general beliefs of competent scientists concerned basic science, which is backed up by mountains of reasoning and evidence. So far I have made three such claims: nuclear power is safe, electric cars are inefficient, and the human race will not become extinct within a decade. Even a brief look at the relevant theory and data will prove the first two claims (I would be happy to elaborate if you want me to show the evidence), while the third is simply a denial of the arbitrary.

The fact that people on both sides of the issue are capable of intellectual dishonesty does not mean that everyone on either side is guilty of it.

I do not think that everyone who believes that global warming is a threat (for example) is dishonest. Many laymen believe it because it is repeated in the media constantly, and I would say that most scientists honestly believe it because they trust the word of their colleagues who have conducted research in the area. People like Al Gore, however, who produce global-warming propaganda, are evading. These people never mention the many competent scientists who disagree with their views. Examples include Richard Lindzen from MIT and Freeman Dyson from Princeton (one of the greatest living physicists; see his essay here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html ). Why do they not mention the scientists who dispute the validity of the models they propound? Such evidence is not in line with their agenda, so they evade it. Of course, just as the "consensus" for man-made global warming does not prove that it is real, so my counterexamples above do not prove that it isn't real. Given my own knowledge of science, I am inclined to agree with Freeman Dyson; I am skeptical that current science can produce models which describe the temperature variation of the Earth's surface with the claimed precision. Beyond that, even if man-made global warming is real, I have heard no convincing arguments that it is a threat to human life. Sea levels may rise slightly, but this will happen very gradually and can easily be overcome through technology. As I recall, different models predict different changes in weather severity (both increases and decreases, depending on the model). I have heard reasonable arguments that slightly warmer temperatures will be better for human life. Are these arguments ever mentioned by Al Gore and other environmentalists? No; they are inconvenient also. I even hear arguments to the effect that we should stop worrying about whether global warming is real, and simply assume it is and begin acting (the idea is that the costs of not acting if it is real would be too great). Needless to say, these arguments do not convince me.

Why should I listen to calls for "saving energy" given the things I mentioned above? If someone proves that it is in my self-interest to save energy, I will do it. Until then, I will point out the evasions of those who place a political agenda above the truth.

Bullshit. By this stupid logic, meteorologists are guilty of evasion every time they get the forecast wrong.

I never said that honesty implies infallibility. In fact, if you read my quote, I said that a radical difference between one's beliefs and reality implies evasion. By "radical" I mean that the person's beliefs are consistently not in accordance with reality, across a broad spectrum of ideas. Also, a good meteorologist knows that his models predict the weather to a certain degree of probability. A metorologist who declared that he is certain that it will snow in ten days would probably be evading this fact.

Finally, it is interesting that in discussions about evolution (for example), evidence is typically presented in favor of evolution (through descriptions of Darwin's reasoning, or through modern data). With man-made global warming, this is rarely the case. Typically, the "consensus" will be mentioned, and there will then be an assertion by the speaker that global warming is a threat to man's survival. I heard exactly this last week, and this was at a talk delivered to an audience of engineering professors and graduate students, who could have understood any evidence that was presented (none was). For every other issue mentioned in the talk (including, for example, nuclear power and electric cars), rational arguments were given in support of the speaker's conclusions. Then we reached global warming, and all we got were unsupported assertions. Ironically, the claims which were supported by evidence were in fact "settled science", while global warming was the only issue mentioned where there is still any dispute. As a student of science and engineering, I find this fishy.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Tenzing_Shaw

[Capitalism Forever]

I frequently seem to find myself defending people I disagree with, because I can't stand the way their positions are strawmanned on this board. So, here I go defending the environmentalists:

It was interesting to read your defense of the environmentalists. I'd like to play too, but I want to add some variety, so I'll try a different theme if you don't mind. So listen to this: I think the Nazis were really evil people. I know they said they were working to make Germany more prosperous, but I don't care about that. It's not that I wouldn't like Germany to be more prosperous myself, I just think they weren't honest when they claimed that to be their goal. I think they weren't working to create prosperity at all; they were irrational nihilists motivated by--can you believe I'm saying this?--an anti-man ideology!

I am looking forward to your response to my outrageous strawman argument.