Talk:Global problems

Aran, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and stuff and do please read this article

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10484420 - My gut feeling is that this guy is right. --Duncan

Anyone who's debating against climate change and therefore supporting the continuation of our present unsustainable approach to industry is just a fool and not worth listening to. It doesn't matter whether there's climate change or not, the fact is that our current approach to existing on this planet is going to eventually kill the majority of us whether its sooner or later, so the sooner we get our shit together the better. --Nad

Yeah well that is fine to say, but truth has a way of coming out in the end and I bet the repercussions of that could be worse. --Duncan

So I reckon your first statement is just downright wrong. If you believe it irrespective of whether humans cause significant climate change or not (at least everyone seems to agree that some climate change is definitely occurring), then you are just saying the means justifies the ends. Hitler said that too you know. --Duncan

If you're disagreeing with me about the obvious fact that we need to change to a sustainable way of running our planet then I've got nothing more to say to you on the subject. --Nad

No I am not disagreeing with that, but I disagree with the use of false scare tactics to achieve this (and erroneously by the way, why shouldn't NZ burn its plentiful coal for electricity so long as it is away from population centres? - would avoid very environmentally damaging & expensive hydro scheme etc).

I say that a bad fundamental assumption in the beginning will lead to a bad result in the end - wouldn't you say? --Duncan

Yes I disagree with basing action on assumption, and with ends justifying means. The problem is that these superficial arguments are getting in the way of the real issues which are about the planetary scale of unsustainable industry which cannot avoid creating global environmental change in the near future. See also w:Scientific opinion on climate change --Nad

Yes looks somewhat convincing, but doesn't it seem a little odd to you how so many organisations are sticking their heads up and say they agree with global warming when the chances are they know very little about it apart from what they have read on the web or watched on TV (Engineers Australia, American Chemical Society, come on - what about the New Delhi Dentists Association as well?).

Sorry man looks like I am a 'denier' for now. Well actually that sort of sounds like 'athiest', when I am really more 'agnostic' about the whole thing. I think I will call myself a 'Yeah Right' kind of guy for now.

REMEMBER in fifty years or so when this all blows over, I TOLD YOU SO. I reckon there's a pretty good chance this thing could make that 2000 computer bug thingy look like a walk in the park. Make the entire Western world look like dickheads to EVERYONE ELSE. They are probably laughing about it right now in Beijing anyway. Sheesh, I am starting to feel embarrassed myself. --Nad

All I is say'in, is that I am sceptical about the significance of the effects. Problem about media coverage of course, is that it appears to be all so one-sided with apparently little room for doubt. If it were a little more objective I might be a little more forthcoming.

Take the evolution thing for example. I have looked into that somewhat, and found that we have all been brought up to believe unreservedly in the Darwin story, when it is in actual fact very speculative and based on the actual evidence is almost mythological theory rather than science. Any hint of alternative theories which might even be backed up by scientific evidence (such as Noah's Ark for example) is dismissed as dumbo thinking. Humanist educationists in the US were apparently instrumental in this policy (apparently the Dewey guy) of 're-education' earlier in the nineteenth century. Given that evolutionist or creationist teachings are 'Origin of Life' issues directly relating to the presence of an Almighty God, and actually of little relevance to anything else except to perhaps an archaeologist, one would question why it is taught in schools at all except for the purpose of religious (i.e. humanist) indoctrination of the masses from childhood.

You see that's how they get to us Aran, before we even know how to think for ourselves. I have heard that were showing Al Gores environmental movie in UK schools as part of a nationwide approved syllabus, until some parent took it to court and got it chucked out on the basis of spurious scientific claims made in that movie.

Dr Joseph Goebbels was a leader in the field of propaganda and indoctrination of the masses, and just look at the great things he did for Hitler's Germany. --Duncan

Yes I'm familiar with the education manipulation and with Goebbels - he actually learned most of his hardcore propaganda from Edward Bernays who was Sigmund Freud's nephew and used his work to help the corporate agenda manipulate the masses. These same technologies were then refined further and finally used by the Clinton and then the Blair and Bush governments for their agendas.

Things aren't only based on evidence, there's also sound reasoning and logic required, for example we may not have enough evidence to fully prove evolution at the scale of human kind, but given what we know about the way life works in the here and now makes refuting evolution ridculous, just as is denying man-made climate change. You're arguing illogically (as are the opposition) to support your own agendas - in your case you want everything to work out the way the bible says it is. We should all be purely striving for truth and objectivity regardless of what it says. --Nad