One thing about the environmental movement which ticks me off is the "holier
than thou" attitude when dealing with anyone who disagrees with you. I think
my own environmental credentials are pretty solid, but every time I even
suggest that animal rights, or public health, or a couple of other issues
are not major environmental issues I get beat up by a couple of list members
who think I'm spitting in the environmental sacramental chalice. I've been
doing environmental stuff for almost 40 years now and I've seen the
environmental movement chiefly arise out of the Vietnam anti-war movement,
prior to that it was primarily patrons of LL Bean and the Sierra Club (both
of which I use). Just because Steve, Spawn of Satan, does not agree with
what is perceived to be the "right" view of economics or global warming is
not reason not to listen to him. I won't name names, but there are
environmental purists on this list who I always just delete when I see their
name, you know in advance what they are going to say on any topic.
I'm not defending Steve, Imp of Hell, he hardly needs my help, what I'm
saying is that the attitude that environmentalists should only talk to those
who agree with them is partially to blame for the fact that the US now has a
President who feels he doesn't have to deal with the environmental movement
because they have dismissed him already. We will probably see oil drilling
in the ANWR and environmentalists can have a real self indulgent feeling of
indignation and rant and rave to each other about it, but lord help anyone
who suggests that some sort of compromise was possible to protect at least
some of the ANWR.
Steven
“Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal in a social,
omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of a slow-breeding, large,
intelligent primate. To shatter our population structure, to become abundant
in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological relations with the
rest of nature, it sets the stage for our mass insanity.”
Paul Shepard
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Kirby
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 5:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: dealing with time wasters
While not in sympathy with all that Steve says nor the way he sometimes
says it, I think it unfair to pick on him uniquely for criticism.
Thats all.
Regards Paul K
>Hi - It's clear that this guy Steve's only intent is to confuse, disrupt
>and interrupt decent discussions. It's hard to do at times, but I
>think the best is to just ignore, act like he didn't even respond and
>go on. Dealing with him just drags all of us down, saps our energy.
>I'm sure that many do not post or discuss because they don't want
>to have to face this. You can even put a filter on most email
>programs that will just delete any messages for so and so before
>you ever even see them.
>
>Mike
>
>> Dear Folks, how would you like to be off and on a list for over two
years,
>> and each time that you post a sincere message on a topic, you have a
reply
>> coming back from the same person on the list, 99 times out of 100, in
>> disagreement. I am not the only one....I wrote a message to Benjamin
about
>> global modeling, and I get a rebuttal from you know who....
>>
>> But look at this:
>>
>> Steve:
>> >As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted before,
>> >reconstructed data from proxy sources. It is the data that is used by
>> >James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming. Thus, if John's
>> >criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it means
the
>> >predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong. ROFLMAO!!"
>>
>> I had no idea that on November 28, 2000, that Steve would actually take
>> the time and think about what I had pointed out regarding his data set.
>> That possibly the data was 'proxy' data. That it was actually not
possible
>> to measure irradience outside the atmosphere in 1900. So to save face, he
>> finally after 2 years of constant sniping and barbs, indicates that well
I
>> may have been correct.
>>
>> But you know Folks, he has forgotten my little lesson and is now
>> contradicting himself. It was okay to use proxy data when it proved his
>> point, but then when proxy data was not useful for proving his point,
>> then he does not like it because it is proxy data.
>>
>> Here is what he said, December 18, 2000:
>>
>> >Given the lack of actual data and the reliance on considerable amounts
of
>> >proxy data the models that predict out for over 100 years should be
taken
>> >not only with a grain of salt, but a canister.
>>
>> Way too funny....anyway Folks I could not help myself. Yes way too funny.
>> A person that only argues for argument sake never convinces anyone. And
it
>> was William James that said that in "Principles of Psychology".
"Arguments
>> never convince anyone". Honest I am not trying to 'goad him' but rather
>> point out the contradictions in the 'arguments' ....which if I am on this
>> list for two more years will be identical in style as they were four
years
>> previously.....
>>
>> chao,
>>
>> john foster
>>
>>
|