Susan Blackmore contracts apocalyptic fever

[delphi_ote]

We can fight an asteroid? Isn’t the accepted theory, that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs? I think this theory replaced the “they farted themselves to death” theory.

Please, go on. When you display your ignorance so openly, we don't have to bother pointing it out.

 

[The Painter]

The point is that we can spot the asteroid AND do something to prevent it from hitting us.

No we can't. Armageddon was just a movie.

 

[Rolfe]

What for?

Well....for starters, you built your criticism on the wrong person. And, you don't think raising the sea level (to pick just one issue) will result in the loss of many lives.

Or, perhaps I'm getting it wrong? Maybe we should take it step by step.

Do you believe that global warming is a fact?

Just explain to me where I am losing you with this line of reasoning.

Oh dear. Maybe you should actually read my posts, rather than just deciding what you think I said.

No, I didn't build my criticism on the wrong person. I was interested in this thread because I mistakenly thought the article had been written by Baroness Susan Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain and Fullerton Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford. On reflection, this assumption was ridiculous. However, it was that misapprehansion that made me think the subject was worth serious discussion. I have an enormous degree of respect for Professor Greenfield, however I also formed a degree of dislike of her. It was a mistake for me to have permitted this dislike to allow me to believe that she might have been responsible for this claptrap, and even worse, be a self-confessed drug-taker. My bad. I believe I have already expressed my embarrassment and contrition about this.

However, that's exactly as far as it goes. Realising that the author is in fact someone of academic insignificance in comparison to Professor Greenfield led me to take the article even less seriously, and indeed to wonder why it was worth discussing at all. In no way did I criticise the article on any false apprehensions.

What you are losing with this line of reasoning is the entire point of my objections to this article. The timescale given, and the implied lack of any practical avoidance measures.

You continually ask if I believe in global warming, or that raising sea level will cause various disasters and so on, which is simply not the point. Susan Blackmore's article is entirely based on the argument that the catastrophe is inevitable within "a few decades", and therefore (by implication) unavoidable.

Thus her list of possible strategies consists of highly inflammatory eugenics or selfpreservationist measures which would be repugnant to any human being.

If she were saying that unless percautionary measures are taken now or at least very soon, then this is the scenario that might be faced by the human race at some time in the future, and these are the choices they may have to make, then I probably wouldn't even be commenting. If I did, I expect I'd find myself on the opposite side to Diamond.

However, that's not what she's saying, if you actually read it. She's saying that catastrophe is certain (at least "in all probability"), within a short time-span, probably the lifetimes of most of us, and we need to think now about which of these four satanic choices society ought to adopt.

So, Claus, do you expect to be flooded out of house and home within the next few decades? Do you believe that these four approaches represent the rational choices to handle this occurrence? Which one do you favour, do you think?

As for your list of questions - I believe I asked first.

So quit with the straw-manning and critique the paper as it stands. If you want to discuss global warming in the general sense, either start a new thread or bump some of the old ones - I now you're good at bumping old threads when it suits you.

Rolfe. (Returing to the gardening now, before the rain comes on.)

 

[delphi_ote]

No we can't. Armageddon was just a movie.

http://www.physorg.com/news63293633.html
http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/impactearth.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh dear. Maybe you should actually read my posts, rather than just deciding what you think I said.

No, I didn't build my criticism on the wrong person. I was interested in this thread because I mistakenly thought the article had been written by Baroness Susan Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain and Fullerton Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford. On reflection, this assumption was ridiculous. However, it was that misapprehansion that made me think the subject was worth serious discussion. I have an enormous degree of respect for Professor Greenfield, however I also formed a degree of dislike of her. It was a mistake for me to have permitted this dislike to allow me to believe that she might have been responsible for this claptrap, and even worse, be a self-confessed drug-taker. My bad. I believe I have already expressed my embarrassment and contrition about this.

OK. You thought it was Greenfield, but it turned out to be Blackmore. But you still didn't base it on the wrong person.

However, that's exactly as far as it goes. Realising that the author is in fact someone of academic insignificance in comparison to Professor Greenfield led me to take the article even less seriously, and indeed to wonder why it was worth discussing at all. In no way did I criticise the article on any false apprehensions.

Except that you got the author wrong. I wonder how could you possibly not see the "Blackmore" in the thread title, or the no less than 48 times "Blackmore" was mentioned.

But I guess anyone can slip. The two names are, after all, close to each other: Both contain references to a color.

What you are losing with this line of reasoning is the entire point of my objections to this article. The timescale given, and the implied lack of any practical avoidance measures.

You continually ask if I believe in global warming, or that raising sea level will cause various disasters and so on, which is simply not the point. Susan Blackmore's article is entirely based on the argument that the catastrophe is inevitable within "a few decades", and therefore (by implication) unavoidable.

Thus her list of possible strategies consists of highly inflammatory eugenics or selfpreservationist measures which would be repugnant to any human being.

If she were saying that unless percautionary measures are taken now or at least very soon, then this is the scenario that might be faced by the human race at some time in the future, and these are the choices they may have to make, then I probably wouldn't even be commenting. If I did, I expect I'd find myself on the opposite side to Diamond.

However, that's not what she's saying, if you actually read it. She's saying that catastrophe is certain (at least "in all probability"), within a short time-span, probably the lifetimes of most of us, and we need to think now about which of these four satanic choices society ought to adopt.

So, Claus, do you expect to be flooded out of house and home within the next few decades? Do you believe that these four approaches represent the rational choices to handle this occurrence? Which one do you favour, do you think?

I expect that it is very likely that, if we do not do something drastic to prevent global warming, we will see some radical changes to our societies. Yes, we will be flooded within the next few decades, and so will millions - probably billions - more.

Are the four approaches rational? That's an odd question. I don't think that Blackmore argues that these are rational solutions, but rather that they are draconian. That's her point.

I favor the solution where we don't have to get in a position where any of these solutions will have to be chosen. That's why I would very much like to see action being taken to prevent this.

As for your list of questions - I believe I asked first.

Totally unrelated to this issue.

So quit with the straw-manning and critique the paper as it stands. If you want to discuss global warming in the general sense, either start a new thread or bump some of the old ones - I now you're good at bumping old threads when it suits you.

Rolfe. (Returing to the gardening now, before the rain comes on.)

This is very much a thread about global warming. Now, I answered your questions about my stance on global warming. Please answer mine about yours.

I do believe I asked them first....

 

[Rolfe]

OK. You thought it was Greenfield, but it turned out to be Blackmore. But you still didn't base it on the wrong person.

I didn't base my opinion on any person at all. I based it on the content of the article. I took that more seriously than was warranted because I was mistaken in thinking that the author was someone of great academic respectability.

Except that you got the author wrong. I wonder how could you possibly not see the "Blackmore" in the thread title, or the no less than 48 times "Blackmore" was mentioned.

But I guess anyone can slip. The two names are, after all, close to each other: Both contain references to a color.

Exactly. Funny how the brain works sometimes.

I expect that it is very likely that, if we do not do something drastic to prevent global warming, we will see some radical changes to our societies. Yes, we will be flooded within the next few decades, and so will millions - probably billions - more.

Are the four approaches rational? That's an odd question. I don't think that Blackmore argues that these are rational solutions, but rather that they are draconian. That's her point.

I favor the solution where we don't have to get in a position where any of these solutions will have to be chosen. That's why I would very much like to see action being taken to prevent this.

It therefore seems to me that we have little or no disagreement on the subject. I take little note of your comment that "we" will be flooded within the next few decades, because this depends on your definition of "we" (which is probably as elastic as your definition of "you"!). Of course there will be floods within the next few decades, involving both Britain and Denmark. There have been floods involving Britain and Denmark every few decades for much of recorded history. Situation normal.

Blackmore's entire thesis is that "within the next few decades" we will be in the situation where "The world will be awash with eco-refugees, desperate to get to anywhere with land and fresh water." No alternative, no mention of any possible "solution where we don't have to get in a position where any of these solutions will have to be chosen". Which is why I find her article poorly thought through, alarmist scaremongering. She then proposes that there are only four possible ways to approach this situation, all highly repugnant. If these are the only possible approaches, is this not a rational argument? If these approaches are the only possible ones, why are they not "rational"? Being draconian doesn't make them not rational, and it seems to be that if they are the only possible courses of action then they are by definition rational.

You appear not to agree with her. You suggest other (unspecified) courses of action with might avery the catastrophe. Exactly my criticism of the article, that her apocalyptic vision is presented as inevitable, and such avoidance measures not referred to - apparently she doesn't see these as viable approaches.

Why are you so keen to defend her by ignoring what she actually says, and attacking those who have read what she actually says?

I have no intention of submitting to a catechism of my "beliefs" about global warming. I am discussing this article by Susan Blackmore, not the subject as a whole.

Are you ever going to stop running away from all the old questions, by the way?

Rolfe.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Blackmore must've seen "Water World" more than once.

 

[Chaos]

We can fight an asteroid? Isn’t the accepted theory, that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs? I think this theory replaced the “they farted themselves to death” theory.

What the f*** is wrong with you?

I was NOT talking about an asteroid. I was talking about the threat of global warming, which you suggesting we should take as a prompt to roll over and die out.
Besides, as Claus said, we can spot asteroids when they´re years away from a potential impact, we can, when it comes to that, devise measure that might destroy or deflect it, and we can prepare for the consequences of the impact. There´s no reason to be certain a "dinobuster"-size asteroid would be our death penalty.

Really, if you can debate straight and reply to what I said, instead of posting non-sequiturs, then it´s no use debating to you at all.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There's nothing wrong with being the Weil of skepticism.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Besides, as Claus said, we can spot asteroids when they´re years away from a potential impact, we can, when it comes to that, devise measure that might destroy or deflect it, and we can prepare for the consequences of the impact. There´s no reason to be certain a "dinobuster"-size asteroid would be our death penalty.

Yup. We can send up Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck, Steve Buscemi and Will Patton to take care of that big boy! They'll show 'em who's boss ... and kick some ass-
teroid.

 

[delphi_ote]

There´s no reason to be certain a "dinobuster"-size asteroid would be our death penalty.

See the links I posted if you doubt it!

 

[jj]

OK. And warming does what?

What drives the conveyor, Jeff?

 

[jj]

lol

Did you have something constructive to say? Did I miss it?

 

[Jeff Corey]

What drives the conveyor, Jeff?

My guess is the nearest star.

 

[jj]

Given the choice, I'd say nihilist.

Perhaps discordian?

 

[jj]

My guess is the nearest star.

Yes, and the cold water from the icecap has what to do with it?

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't base my opinion on any person at all. I based it on the content of the article.

Which explains your references to her drug use and physical appearance. Both of which you disapprove of.

I took that more seriously than was warranted because I was mistaken in thinking that the author was someone of great academic respectability.

But Susan Blackmore is someone of great academic respectability.

Exactly. Funny how the brain works sometimes.

A hoot.

It therefore seems to me that we have little or no disagreement on the subject. I take little note of your comment that "we" will be flooded within the next few decades, because this depends on your definition of "we" (which is probably as elastic as your definition of "you"!). Of course there will be floods within the next few decades, involving both Britain and Denmark. There have been floods involving Britain and Denmark every few decades for much of recorded history. Situation normal.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about floods, as in permanent floods. The rise in sea level due to a melting of the ice caps.

Blackmore's entire thesis is that "within the next few decades" we will be in the situation where "The world will be awash with eco-refugees, desperate to get to anywhere with land and fresh water." No alternative, no mention of any possible "solution where we don't have to get in a position where any of these solutions will have to be chosen". Which is why I find her article poorly thought through, alarmist scaremongering.

But why is she wrong? Is the temperature not rising? Does that not mean that the ice caps will melt, at least to some degree? Yes, you know the questions.

You simply state that she is wrong, but you don't explain why.

She then proposes that there are only four possible ways to approach this situation, all highly repugnant. If these are the only possible approaches, is this not a rational argument? If these approaches are the only possible ones, why are they not "rational"? Being draconian doesn't make them not rational, and it seems to be that if they are the only possible courses of action then they are by definition rational.

I can see one more rational solution: Preventing global warming.

You appear not to agree with her. You suggest other (unspecified) courses of action with might avery the catastrophe. Exactly my criticism of the article, that her apocalyptic vision is presented as inevitable, and such avoidance measures not referred to - apparently she doesn't see these as viable approaches.

That's not how I read it. She lists these solutions if nothing is done.

Why are you so keen to defend her by ignoring what she actually says, and attacking those who have read what she actually says?

I am not ignoring anything, quite contrary. I just read it differently than you.

I have no intention of submitting to a catechism of my "beliefs" about global warming. I am discussing this article by Susan Blackmore, not the subject as a whole.

But you had no such qualms when you asked me about my beliefs about global warming. I had to answer your questions about my beliefs about global warming, but you chicken out, despite I asked you first.

Are you ever going to stop running away from all the old questions, by the way?

Rolfe.

I don't think you should polish your halo, Rolfe.

 

[Chaos]

Yup. We can send up Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck, Steve Buscemi and Will Patton to take care of that big boy! They'll show 'em who's boss ... and kick some ass-
teroid.

Will you guys PLEASE stop throwing idiotic strawmen into the debate?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Sigh, I just got someone rolling their eyes at me at work after I said the "earth is not alive". Apparently, I'm naive. To further make myself look silly, I also added "it's just a rock".

Is it that Blackmore figures the earth will rid itself of a disease (humans)?

we in the rich west will go on trying to salve our consciences by giving aid to the poorer parts of the world until we realise, far too late, that Gaia is going to chuck us all off whatever we do, and nothing can be saved at all.

What are these beliefs based on? Melting polar caps? We've had ice ages, we've had warming periods. I think we are supposed to be colder with the current level of oxygen in the atmosphere, or we'll have deserts in warmth? Huh?

How do I squash the "Gaia hypothesis"? Do I simply say there is no proof our planet is conscious? How has Gaia been debunked? We come from earth, but now we're being called parasites/viruses? So are we some cancer instead, life gone wrong?

Doomsday doomsday doomsday. Won't rising water content in the Oceans mean more water in the sky, and won't everything balance out minus a bit of land mass? But when ice melts in a glass, the water in a glass goes down, doesn't it? Except, ice is above ground, and extra water in the ocean makes it go up? Will the levels actually rise?

Are they any realistic oulooks on what x amount of warming will lead to?

 

[CFLarsen]

Sigh, I just got someone rolling their eyes at me at work after I said the "earth is not alive". Apparently, I'm naive. To further make myself look silly, I also added "it's just a rock".

Is it that Blackmore figures the earth will rid itself of a disease (humans)?

What are these beliefs based on? Melting polar caps? We've had ice ages, we've had warming periods. I think we are supposed to be colder with the current level of oxygen in the atmosphere, or we'll have deserts in warmth? Huh?

How do I squash the "Gaia hypothesis"? Do I simply say there is no proof our planet is conscious? How has Gaia been debunked? We come from earth, but now we're being called parasites/viruses? So are we some cancer instead, life gone wrong?

Doomsday doomsday doomsday. Won't rising water content in the Oceans mean more water in the sky, and won't everything balance out minus a bit of land mass? But when ice melts in a glass, the water in a glass goes down, doesn't it? Except, ice is above ground, and extra water in the ocean makes it go up? Will the levels actually rise?

Are they any realistic oulooks on what x amount of warming will lead to?

I posted quite a few links. It's not about losing just a "bit of land mass". We will lose all low coastal areas. And guess where most of the big cities are located?

Yep. Near coastal areas.