quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I think the opposite is true. Unfortunately, those in the past who faced various forms of ecological and climate catastrophies did not foresee their fate until it was too late, and only left us a scant archeological record from which to learn. Take Easter Island, the Incas, the Mayans, and other early American civilizations that failed for similar reasons to those on Easter Island. They only destroyed a couple of generations' worth of resources - the resources we are destroying will take millions of years to restore. Even we, with all our advanced technologies, can't wait that long...

Lucibee - please name the "climate catastrophes" man faced in the past. And indicate which ones (if any) were man-made? (I am willing to learn from the past so that I'm not condemned to repeat it)

Why don't you look them up yourself for a change?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Why don't you look them up yourself for a change?

Because you mentioned them to support you point... and because I can't find any.

As you must have some "climate catastrophes" in mind, you can let us know which ones.

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

As I understand it, with Easter Island and an early American civilization, the settlers progressively removed the trees from their locations in their entirity. Given that trees provide not only wood for fuel and building, but also shelter from the harsh pacific storms, their complete removal was fairly devastating, especially they would have taken at least a generation to regrow.

In the case of mid-America (can't remember the name of the settlement - but I think it was on Planet Earth - BBC Attenborough), the loss of trees did also have a profound effect on the climate, resulting in much hotter drier conditions, and lack of water retention in the over-cultivated soils.

The Incas probably suffered a similar fate. The Mayans probably have the most documentation because the are the most recent. Their demise was again similar - overpopulation, overcultivation, change in regional ecology, etc etc, over the period of many centuries, and were then finished off by the Spanish - not only by war, but more seriously by the introduced diseases.

The lesson from all these? Sustainability. We shouldn't take what we don't know will be there for the next generation. And to use resources that we know have taken millions of years to form seems a little short-sighted!

I suppose my point here is that these examples are for individual civilizations over a large period of time, with populations that were fairly small by today's standards.

The concern is that there are currently about 3-4 billion people in civilizations that are chronically dependant on the sorts of resources that could pose us real problems in the future if they run out, not to mention the possible climatic effects of using them at the rate we do.

However, if you feel that we will only learn our lesson by making the same mistakes again, then we are probably already well on the way!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
As I understand it, with Easter Island and an early American civilization, the settlers progressively removed the trees from their locations in their entirity. Given that trees provide not only wood for fuel and building, but also shelter from the harsh pacific storms, their complete removal was fairly devastating, especially they would have taken at least a generation to regrow.

Well, trees are a farmable resource and modern man farms them extensively - so a lesson that been long-learnt from the past.

quote:

In the case of mid-America, the loss of trees did also have a profound effect on the climate, resulting in much hotter drier conditions, and lack of water retention in the over-cultivated soils.

So the loss of trees changed the climate in a small area into one less ideal for man. Hardly a "climate catastrophe" is it? Again a lesson which has been long-learnt.

quote:

The Incas probably suffered a similar fate. The Mayans probably have the most documentation because the are the most recent. Their demise was again similar - overpopulation, overcultivation, change in regional ecology, etc etc, over the period of many centuries, and were then finished off by the Spanish - not only by war, but more seriously by the introduced diseases.

This isn't a "climate catastrophe" either.

quote:

The lesson from all these?

Learn to distinguish your past ecological/resource mistakes from your "climate catastrophe" fantasies and your points will become a lot more focused and coherent.

Benefit? People will understand that you know what you are talking about rather than being someone who cannot remember the past... a past full of repeated histories of groups terrorising established cultures and lifestyles with "catastrophe" unless they submit to the group's unquestioned authority ('Settlers' and the Spanish, to name a couple).

Why on earth did you bother even to ask me to provide you with examples?

I've had enough - go burn!

I was actually talking about "various forms of ecological AND climate catastrophy". If we are into the boring and constant habit of philosophers of assigning very particular definitions to each word used (usually deliberately contrary to the one used by the one posing the question), then I mean catastrophy in it's commonest sense to mean anything that brings about the end (of in this case a civilisation), or discontinuation. In this case, the hot dry climate caused by the lack of trees led to the discontinuation of life for settlers in mid-America. I'm not going to go through the others - I presume you are intelligent enough to do it for yourself!

Also, ecology is not just about resources. As I pointed out, ecological catastrophies (ie, changes in local ecology) can lead to climatic changes.

It is not clear that we have learnt anything. We are quite likely to enter a period where we lurch from one catastrophic situation to another in our attempts to solve the overall problem. For example, removal of rainforest to grow the alternatives to oil and coal could actually have worse consequences than the initial lack of oil and coal. I think we should be using our most powerful resource for energy - the sun - and learn lessons from the way in which it produces energy, and go nuclear in the meantime until we find more efficient ways to harness its power directly.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
As I understand it, with Easter Island and an early American civilization, the settlers progressively removed the trees from their locations in their entirity. Given that trees provide not only wood for fuel and building, but also shelter from the harsh pacific storms, their complete removal was fairly devastating, especially they would have taken at least a generation to regrow.

Well, trees are a farmable resource and modern man farms them extensively - so a lesson that been long-learnt from the past.

quote:

In the case of mid-America, the loss of trees did also have a profound effect on the climate, resulting in much hotter drier conditions, and lack of water retention in the over-cultivated soils.

So the loss of trees changed the climate in a small area into one less ideal for man. Hardly a "climate catastrophe" is it? Again a lesson which has been long-learnt.

quote:

The Incas probably suffered a similar fate. The Mayans probably have the most documentation because the are the most recent. Their demise was again similar - overpopulation, overcultivation, change in regional ecology, etc etc, over the period of many centuries, and were then finished off by the Spanish - not only by war, but more seriously by the introduced diseases.

This isn't a "climate catastrophe" either.

quote:

The lesson from all these?

Learn to distinguish your past ecological/resource mistakes from your "climate catastrophe" fantasies and your points will become a lot more focused and coherent.

Benefit? People will understand that you know what you are talking about rather than being someone who cannot remember the past... a past full of repeated histories of groups terrorising established cultures and lifestyles with "catastrophe" unless they submit to the group's unquestioned authority ('Settlers' and the Spanish, to name a couple).

Lucibee, R58 has no concept of scale. God bless your patience. What the past shows is abuse the environment that sustains you at your peril.

The outgoing government science advisor (Sir David King) has just been speaking ont' radio. He sees GM technology as the only means of feeding future generations (gulp). At the same time he recommends stringent regulation but recognises that this will be difficult in many parts of the world (duoble gulp).

It also emerged that at current rates the UK population will reach 110million in the next 70 years.

Big leaps of faith required then ?

Rog, it scares me, how about you ??

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I was actually talking about "various forms of ecological AND climate catastrophy". If we are into the boring and constant habit of philosophers of assigning very particular definitions to each word used (usually deliberately contrary to the one used by the one posing the question), then I mean catastrophy in it's commonest sense to mean anything that brings about the end (of in this case a civilisation), or discontinuation.

I know what you were talking about Lucibee, I was just pointing out that you are muddling things up. A "catastrophe" is a type of change. An ecological change and a climatic change a two separate changes - although one can influence a change in the other (and visa-versa). An ecological change does not necessarily also result in a climatic change. I would wonder if ecological changes in the examples you give resulted in any climatic change at all in those areas? The negative ecological changes (which may have been partly man-caused) consisted of losing ecological resources that a culture relied upon for its existence - ie: food, shelter etc.

Just as positive ecological changes - of the same type - increase the resources that a culture relies upon for its existence - ie: food from irrigated land, shelter from traded material resources etc. There are quite a few large modern cities which transformed the ecology in exactly this way and made it into spaces that are highly habitable by man. Again, I would not think this has resulted in any climatic change in those areas... other than small urban heat-island effects.

It seems to me that any ecological loses of past generations are more than compensated for by the vast ecological gains modern man has made with his ingenious use of technology. I look forward to the day when ALL mankind shares the benefits of this technology as it advances and probably becomes cheaper.

quote:

It is not clear that we have learnt anything. We are quite likely to enter a period where we lurch from one catastrophic situation to another in our attempts to solve the overall problem. For example, removal of rainforest to grow the alternatives to oil and coal could actually have worse consequences than the initial lack of oil and coal.

I've noticed a pattern in your posts. You articulate what you (from your understanding) believe to be a 'likelihood' and in the next breath go on to talk as if it is a definite 'certainty'. If there is no "overall problem" then there can be no "lurch from one catastrophic situation to another" because there is nothing to solve. When irresponsible governments, scientists and press abuse their power by pushing hypothetical, abstract problems before us - with the purpose of exciting fear - then the threat made by those agencies becomes clear - "either submit to our unquestioned authority... or lurch from one catastrophic situation to another". The REAL choice, of course, is for the people to get rid of the corrupt agencies and replace them with ones that return to doing their job of serving the people.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

It seems to me that any ecological loses of past generations are more than compensated for by the vast ecological gains modern man has made with his ingenious use of technology. I look forward to the day when ALL mankind shares the benefits of this technology as it advances and probably becomes cheaper.

Rog, so it turns out you are a disciple of Lovelock after all. Nice one.

Oh please, Seskinreay, don't sully the good name of Lovelock!

R58, you look forward to the day when all mankind can benefit from technology - but if we don't have enough resources on this planet for everyone in existence today to benefit from such technology, how on earth can we expect to do so some day in the future when the global population will be much larger?

As to the pattern in my posts - I think you are describing the pattern in your own posts, although you talk as if you are speaking from definite certainty most of the time!

Clearly, "If there is no overall problem, ....there is nothing to solve", but you speak as if it has already been proved that there is no problem.

"Governments, scientists and press abuse their power by pushing hypothetical, abstract problems with the purpose of exciting fear". Do they? I don't find the problem at all abstract. It might be hypothetical at this stage, but maybe they know that the only way to get us off our bottoms and do something is to get us slightly scared. Although I don't think they are really trying yet. I don't know why you are so irate about this though - you are clearly not scared, and you clearly don't care!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Oh please, Seskinreay, don't sully the good name of Lovelock!

I wouldn't worry about it Lucibee. If, in Seskinreay's eyes, I am a disciple of Lovelock - that makes Seskinreay a disciple of me.

quote:

R58, you look forward to the day when all mankind can benefit from technology - but if we don't have enough resources on this planet for everyone in existence today to benefit from such technology, how on earth can we expect to do so some day in the future when the global population will be much larger?

This muddle you are in is a tough one to shift isn't it? What you describe here is a possible ecological change - NOT a climatic change. Your thinking is back-to-front again too. It is ecology that benefits from changes made to it by technology - NOT technology that benefits from changes made to it by ecology. That is: a positive ecological change is that an ecology yields more resources as the result of technological improvement to it.

quote:

As to the pattern in my posts - I think you are describing the pattern in your own posts, although you talk as if you are speaking from definite certainty most of the time!

I am definitely certain that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Time and again man's history is full of stories which the AGW scare mirror.

quote:

Clearly, "If there is no overall problem, ....there is nothing to solve", but you speak as if it has already been proved that there is no problem.

Almost always there was no problem in historically similar 'scares' - a problem was invented, or misdiagnosed, bay group with the intention of that group gaining omnipotence over others.

quote:

"Governments, scientists and press abuse their power by pushing hypothetical, abstract problems with the purpose of exciting fear". Do they? I don't find the problem at all abstract. It might be hypothetical at this stage, but maybe they know that the only way to get us off our bottoms and do something is to get us slightly scared. Although I don't think they are really trying yet. I don't know why you are so irate about this though - you are clearly not scared, and you clearly don't care!

As I have said, the pattern is:
1) Abuse authority to terrorise a population (with a half-concealed 'threat').
2) Present that terrorised population with two choices (for responding to the threat):
- a) submit to our unquestioned authority - or
- b) lurch from one catastrophic situation to another
3) Rely on the state of terror and concealing full objective information to cause the population to fail to realise it has a third choice:
- c) get rid of the abusing authority.

An age-old approach which is clearly effective with you. Let's just say sceptics are very likely the people who have always been able to make it through to "- c)" - and that's why we've been able to sustain a healthy and developing human ecology so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Oh please, Seskinreay, don't sully the good name of Lovelock!

I wouldn't worry about it Lucibee. If, in Seskinreay's eyes, I am a disciple of Lovelock - that makes Seskinreay a disciple of me.

Rog, I'll follow you to the end of the world. You go over the edge first and I'll be right behind you, honest.

quote:

The outgoing government science advisor (Sir David King)

The court has tuley lost its jester, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out Dave

R58 - you haven't yet made the connection between ecological change and climate change. When you do, you'll understand what I've been going on about, and be able to learn from the past. Until then, I'm with Seskinreay - see you on the other side!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
R58 - you haven't yet made the connection between ecological change and climate change. When you do, you'll understand what I've been going on about, and be able to learn from the past.

Lucibee, a forlorn hope I'm afraid.

If Rog was falsely told his house was burning down nine times, he would ignore the tenth warning because of the established pattern (always assuming he follows his own logic - a fact that cannot be relied upon).

I think there is a neat term for that type of thinking. I just call it Stupid !!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
R58 - you haven't yet made the connection between ecological change and climate change. When you do, you'll understand what I've been going on about, and be able to learn from the past. Until then, I'm with Seskinreay - see you on the other side!

I very clearly have made the connection between ecological change and climatic change Lucibee. I've defined both the limits of their connection to, and their separation from, each other.

We've also explored how man's technology drives positive ecological change and its absence hastens negative ecological change. Looking at pictures of Easter Island, it's fairly clear to see what happened there and learn its lessons. This isolated people turned its back on technology and development in preference to wishing - organised around totemic 'authority-figures'. Easter Island is a monument to remind modern-man of the consequences of this... but it's also a shrine to those whose wishing stops them learning any lessons from the past.

With ecological change and climatic change, what you keep trying to do isn't 'connecting' but 'merging'... and, demonstrably, your attempted mergers end up as a mess of thought. Even more so when you make efforts to appropriate science to prop-up all this wishfulness.

The fact is, there has never been any climatic catastrophes in man's history. But, as you know, an acknowledgement of this will require you to de-merger ecology from climate... and that means having to let go of all your messy wishing.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
R58 - you haven't yet made the connection between ecological change and climate change. When you do, you'll understand what I've been going on about, and be able to learn from the past. Until then, I'm with Seskinreay - see you on the other side!

I very clearly have made the connection between ecological change and climatic change Lucibee. I've defined both the limits of their connection to, and their separation from, each other.

We've also explored how man's technology drives positive ecological change and its absence hastens negative ecological change. Looking at pictures of Easter Island, it's fairly clear to see what happened there and learn its lessons. This isolated people turned its back on technology and development in preference to wishing - organised around totemic 'authority-figures'. Easter Island is a monument to remind modern-man of the consequences of this... but it's also a shrine to those whose wishing stops them learning any lessons from the past.

With ecological change and climatic change, what you keep trying to do isn't 'connecting' but 'merging'... and, demonstrably, your attempted mergers end up as a mess of thought. Even more so when you make efforts to appropriate science to prop-up all this wishfulness.

The fact is, there has never been any climatic catastrophes in man's history. But, as you know, an acknowledgement of this will require you to de-merger ecology from climate... and that means having to let go of all your messy wishing.

Rog, how did the planet and life on earth ever cope without us for 4.5 aeons?

As for no climatic catastrophies, you really must be from another planet. I suggest you watch the reruns of "The Power of the Planet" because you clearly missed the past two episodes.

To presume that man's actions can never have any effect on the climate is unsupportable by the evidence, I'm afraid. Take the deadly smogs in London from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Fortunately, technology has allowed us to "clean up" to some degree.

I'm not sure what you think we're being "wishful" or are "fantasising" about? We have no desire for these things to happen, any more than you do. But only by accepting that they might happen can we actually start either to do something to prepare for it, or to try to stop it. However, I rather suspect that because of people like yourself,