http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/desperation-robotic-twitter-bot-spoofs-climate-change-deniers/#more-27444

four wrote:

Whose is it then? Nothing else has a consciousness capable of claiming ownership let alone being capable of understanding that there is a planet. You may think that the Earth belongs to all life, but as a human you are the only living thing able to make such a claim (should you so wish!) The Earth is ours, however briefly, because we are the only species that are able to give it meaning.

Nordic Snowman wrote:

Hello NS, I think we've been here before haven't we?

There are so many points to challenge in your short post...

1. Whose is it then? Simple, it belongs to all living things on the planet.
2. How do you know that nothing else has a consciousness? 
3. It is not about being able to perceive that there is a planet or being capable of making such a claim.  it was only a few tens of generations ago that man began to realise that there was a planet, so this is not a permanent state of affairs
4. I don't understand the last sentence at all.  You imply that becauses something can be given 'meaning' then it can be 'claimed' - sorry, I really don't know where to start to demolish this.

On the simplest level, as the supposedly most advanced species do we not have a duty to act responsibly towards the planet?  We only have the one and if we mess it up all species suffer.  Does not our 'higher intelligence' confer respoonsibilities?

On another level, if we are so wise do we not appreciate our dependency on a healthy and sustainable eco-system?  If we destroy too much we risk damaging that upon which we depend for our existence.   We are behaving like 'cut and burn' peasants, intent on short-term survival without regard for the longer term.   Fortunately for our ancestors there was another patch of ground somewhere to start again - we have but one Planet Earth.

What the human race was able to do when it numbered a few hundred million is altogether different to what it can afford to do when we are pushing through 7 billion and those 7 billion are consuming more per capita than ever before.

I think I have posed this to you before.   There must be a point when this cannot be sustained, so what is that point and when do we reach it? 

We cannot continue as we are - yet we seem incapable of change until it becomes unavoidable.  The latter carries consequences because there will be a lot of collateral damage if we wait until we have to change our ways.

Nordic Snowman wrote:

I'll address the numbered points first:

1. Who says it belongs to all things on the planet? You? Give me a concrete reason why I should regard this point in any other way than opinion. Some would argue that the world is god's but I'm not religious I'm a humanist.

2. I don't know that for certain but no other creature is capable of organising a society in the way we do. No other living thing has dominance over others like humans.

3. I'm talking about now and the position that history has led us to.

4. Plants and animals do not understand the world in the way humans do, they are unaware of the very concept of a planet. If the planet has no meaning for them how can it belong to them? The very sense of belonging is a human concept, it is not shared by any other creature on earth. If it is only humans who can understand the world how can it not belong to us? You may believe that the world belongs to all life but it is only through collective culture and consciousness that you can proclaim so.

I answered the population point in the Arctic rebound thread.

Gandalf The White wrote:

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

[ooops]

four wrote:

Clearly we are not going to agree here.

Your first answer can be applied equally to your position so it really doesn't move us forward, i.e. give me a concrete reason why I should regard your position as anything other than opinion.... 

To deny that other living things on the planet are entitled to any consideration because we happen to be sentient is a most curious concept.  Clearly our superiority has a limit in your mind - we can apply that superiority in many ways but to include responsibility for the overall well-being of the planet is excluded.   Sorry, that is arbitrary and without rationality, IMO.

I have always regarded "dominance" as a very negative word: it implies a priority for the person dominating and an absence of interest on the effect on the person dominated.   How would you like to be dominated?  Not much, I expect.

Your comments all demonstrate a pervading anthropocentric view, which is all very well and nicely consistent but starts from a different place.  I really don't understand how anyone can argue against a need to protect the eco-system, if only out of self-interest.

Gandalf The White wrote:

Ooo err, cheeky

Gandalf, I'm not saying that other living things aren't entitled to consideration. I believe they are, not because of some intrinsic natural right, but because I believe it is morally correct. The thing is, we are the only species capable of making moral judgements - no other animal cares if another is made extinct, unless it depends on it for its own survival. And even then 'care' is not the right word.

I think there is a very good moral argument to be made that sees the wilfull destruction or disregard of nature as degrading to those that do it. Again I see this as consistant with an anthropocentric view and this does not rule out a desire to protect the eco-system.

It is out of self interest, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of caring for the eco-system in a way which goes beyond mere pragmatism. This is what makes us unique  - the ability to care, to give meaning to existance that goes beyond instinct, and that is why I believe the world, in any meaningful way can only belong to us.

Northern Sky wrote:

LOL to the opening response.....

I think we are in broad agreement but with perhaps a different rationale for getting there.

Thanks

Northern Sky wrote:

LOL to the opening response.....

I think we are in broad agreement but with perhaps a different rationale for getting there.

Thanks

Northern Sky wrote:

This seems very hard line to take.

Northern Sky wrote:

Northern Sky wrote:

This seems a very hard line to take.

Have you no qualms about the direction agw? science? is taking?.

Your views seem to be increasingly against humankind and the lack of hope for such ,lately.

I hope all I have said is wrong.

Northern Sky wrote:

It strikes me that this is a prerequisite (in part anyway), for membership to this club

llamedos wrote:

Hi AIMSIR

That is a very very strange comment to make in a thread where Northern Sky and I have just had a pleasant exchange of views and reached agreement.

What do you mean by 'qualms'?  That's a very odd choice of language, IMO.  The science is perfectly clear - burning of fossil fuels is responsible for increasing the level of CO2 and this is responsible for increasing global temperatures.  The increase in CO2 is an established fact.  The increase in global temperatures is an established fact.   I have made no comment about the likely level of warming and observed freqeuently that natural cycles will increase and dampen the AGW signal.  This is what the science says.   So where is your area of concern exactly?

Aside from that I think your view of my position is entirely misplaced, and indeed I am surprised from our previous exchanges that you would think this.   Obviously I must have missed you making similar observations about the intransigence and rudeness of a number of other posters?

Northern Sky wrote:

Everyone want's the last word don't they ?

Well it's my turn now........back on topic please!

llamedos wrote:

Your Machevellian subterfuge seems to know no bounds. Gandalf the white.

AIMSIR wrote:

Why is there the need to label anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the IPCC as a skeptic or a denier?  Even people like Steve Mosher (who I pick as an archetypal lukewarmer) who doesn’t question the basics of the science at all, but doesn’t think there is much evidence for high CO2 sensitivity and that the catastrophe is overblown.  This is not an irrational position at all.  What is the point of labeling such people as skeptics or deniers?