We do not know what will happen tomorrow (as such). We
do not know what will happen next year (as such). We
do not know what will happen in one hour (as such). We
can discuss, theorise, argue, rally, march, invent and
discuss a multitude of words, yet Nature, all that is,
will carry on flowing in "her" natural way, quietly,
calming, in the background and around and within us
nonetheless. For this there are no words. There is no
argument. There is no discrepancy. There only is.
Until such time as interests are laid aside to realise
and perceive at least this fact, such Human debates
will circle whilst the ever present right-now reality
that is Life, to be lived, continues to be unperceived
or missed. There is no need for debate. There is only
distancing from perception of reality, here and now,
job-related and financial interests or not.
Best Adapt. Best live with, close to, and according
to, Nature's flow - that which you get, for example,
when you're at sea on a yacht, or in the middle of the
Countryside for example, away from noise. Using just
one of a plethora of the fanciful words and phrases
that are being invented and employed at this time...
THAT (!) is Deep Ecology !!! Anyone who says different
is selling something !
There endeth the discussion !!
All the Best !! Not bad ey ; )
Chris. M.
--- John Scull <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "It is difficult to get a man [sic] to understand
> something when his salary
> depends upon his not understanding it"
> --Upton
> Sinclair
>
> John
>
...............................................................
> John Scull
> http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
> There are always two parties; the establishment and
> the movement.
> --Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SowNet" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:43 AM
> Subject: Re: "Mediarology" Stephen Schneider
>
>
> I had to send this to myself to break this down into
> separate paragraphs before
> I could digest it, however much Stephen Schneider
> may have against deep ecology!
>
> See my insertions in the text.
>
> Best wishes from Jim Scott
>
>
>
> Visit: http//:www.save-our-world.net (global) and
> www.save-our-world.org.uk
> Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Keene" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:02 PM
> Subject: "Mediarology" Stephen Schneider
>
>
>
>
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html
>
> I thought members of Crisis Forum would be
> interested in this piece from
> American climate scientist Stephen Schneider. Note
> that he disagrees
> with the deep ecology groups. Where *does* the
> truth lie? Do Greens
> really exaggerate the problems? There is also some
> interesting
> discussion of the role of the media, and of
> scientists
>
> Chris
>
> "Mediarology"
> "“End of the world” and “good for the Earth” are,
> in my experience, the
> two lowest probability cases."
> Special interest groups followed the IPCC
> proceedings closely. Given the
> broad range of possible outcomes, proponents of
> the many sides of the
> climate change debate (often dichotomized into “
> ignore the problem ”
> versus “stop it ” camps, though it is actually an
> issue with many, many
> sides) deliberately selected and continue to
> select information out of
> context that best supports their ideological
> positions and their or
> their clients' interests. They frequently practice
> a phenomenon I call
> "courtroom epistemology": refusing to acknowledge
> that an issue (climate
> change, in this case) is multifaceted, and
> presenting only their own
> arguments, ignoring opposing views.
>
> Stephen Schneider cannot claim to be neutral
> himself.
>
> Deep ecology groups point to the
> most pessimistic outcomes, using their warnings of
> climate catastrophe
> to push for the creation and implementation of
> energy taxes, abatement
> policies, and renewable energy promotion and
> subsidies (as many believe
> renewable energy is “the solution).
>
> This is not what deep ecology is about. The
> pessimistic-optimistic scale is
> Schneider's construct, not theirs.
>
> Clearly, such policies would affect
> the industries that produce and use the most
> energy, especially the oil
> and auto industries. The auto, oil, and other
> fossil fuel-intensive
> industry groups, uncoincidentally, tend to be the
> extreme optimists in
> the global warming debate though, ironically, they
> often are the
> pessimists when it comes to estimating the costs
> of fixing the problem.
> They attempt to trivialize the potential hazards
> of climate change and
> focus on the least serious outcomes and the most
> expensive mitigation
> policies to discourage political action.
>
> They don't tend to be extreme optimists. They
> minimise the hazards of climate
> change to protect their commercial interests.
>
> This plays into the media's tendency to engage in
> "balanced" reporting:
> polarizing an issue (despite its being
> multifaceted) and making each
> "side" equally credible. The media dutifully
> report the dueling
> positions of ecology and industry, further
> confusing policymakers and
> the public with an endless parade of op-eds and
> stories quoting those
> suggesting that global warming is either “good for
> the Earth and too
> expensive to fix anyway” or “the end of the world
> but nonetheless
> relatively cheap to solve with solar or wind
> power.” “End of the world”
> and “good for the Earth” are, in my experience,
> the two lowest
> probability cases (as are "it would bankrupt us to
> mitigate climate
> changes" and "technology will solve climate change
> at no cost"). Neither
> side usually offers probabilities of such
> outcomes.
> "Just because we scientists have Ph.D.s we should
> not hang up our
> citizenship at the door of a public meeting."
>
> I agree that the normal debating format is both
> too crude to produce
> dependable outcomes, and presumes a false
> equivalence between opposed positions.
>
> Eliminating this confusion and misrepresentation
> of the climate change
> debate requires the participation of scientists,
> citizens, and
> journalists alike. First, scientists should not be
> discouraged on
> principle to enter the public debate on climate
> change both as
> scientist-advocates and scientist popularizers; if
> they don't,
> popularization of potential probabilities and
> consequences of climate
> change will occur without their input and will
> likely be more
> inaccurate. A scientist should also transcend
> prejudices against
> non-frequentist (i.e., subjective) analysis and
> treat climate change
> like the issue that it is: one for which future
> empirical data cannot be
> obtained (as it is simply impossible to obtain
> hard data for events
> occurring in the future) and which therefore
> necessitates the use of
> Bayesian, or subjective, probabilities and
> projections/models — our
> 'cloudy crystal balls' — that compile all the
> information we can
> possibly bring to bear on the problem, including,
> but not limited to,
> direct measurements and statistics.
>
> I don't believe anyone, including scientists, can
> presume to transcend
> prejudices, and it is more honest to follow C.
> Wright Mills in 'The Sociological
> Imagination' (1959!) in calling on them to declare
> instead of hiding their
> biases, and Karl Popper in stating that the choice
> of one's theory is a private
> matter, and only its testing is a matter for
> objective scrutiny.
>
> It is scientists, not policymakers,
> who should provide subjective probabilistic
> assessments of climate
> change. Just because we scientists have Ph.D.s we
> should
=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
|
