Movie Time: The Age of Stupid

[Flyfisher]

I no longer (have) time for people who try to put down those who are working their butts off to save our species.

Unfortunately, like it or not, that's exactly what you (and the green movement) must do in order to engage all those who remain unconvinced. You can't simply dismiss and ignore such people because they are the problem and they need to be converted. A relatively few devout believers 'working their butts off' are not going to solve the problem on their own are they? You have to engage the masses, which presumably is what this film is all about, and current form would suggest that you're failing in this regard.

 

[Penners]

This is no more an argument with two sides as would be a discussion of whether or no the Earth is flat.

I believe every argument should have a balanced presentation, so http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

 

[Schoolmarm]

Biff doesn't have to persuade the masses though does he? He clearly states they have until December to persuade the government.

If everyone forgets the argument of who is right and wrong on global warming, we must surely all agree that as a species we have outgrown our niche and have nowhere else to go.

The less resources we use and/or the less of us using them the better.
Yamin..........just because I have pointed this out does not mean you can start demanding to hear my solutions. (as you did with Lime)

 

[yamin]

Schoolmarm

I have no problem with people saying where they think the problem lies, even if they don't have the solution. I do object to the wholesale ' we jave to stop the breeding' type argument. As I have already said, my inclination is to agree with the opinion, but I just don't agree with the eeyore/you're all just out to destroy the world and we may as well give up trying to persuade you ignorant people-type doctrine. I don't know about anyone else, but that sort of dark 'we're all doomed' talk just makes me want to crawl into a hole, surely not a good thing for ny of us to do whilst theres still the tiniest glimmer of hope to save ourselves and our planet.

And surely if Biff and co do get the masses on side, then there is a much better chance of persuading the government to come on board?

 

[biffvernon]

Thank you Penners for promoting the alternative view. I will always defend the right of The Flat Earth Society to speak out. After all, they're harmless. And yes, Schoolmarm, convincing almost seven billion people is not on the agenda, the important thing is empowering the governments to do the right thing.

Flyfisher, Yammin et.al., please stop telling me what I have to do, but rather contribute positively to what we have all to do. This is a joint responsibility and we all have our part to play. For my part, I have taken a great deal of time to study the science and now I'm telling people what I have found. If you don't want to take what I say as gospel, that's fine, but don't just knock it, go and study the science yourself. The week before last 2000 scientist met at Copenhagen and presented 1600 papers. I've only read a tiny proportion of the abstracts and watched the webcasts of the plenary sessions but the message is crystal clear. We have very little time to save ourselves from ourselves.

Slightly tangential to the topic but illustrative of the Age of Stupid, I've been in Cumbria for a few days working on a building project. I wanted some local semi-durable softwood. Went to a likely looking sawmill surrounded by fine forests of larch, Douglas and cedar. Every stack of timber in the yard had labels and stamps with names like Novsibirsky. The was a tanalising shed with white wood went in and emerged with the distinctive green hue of poison. And the idiot who ran the place tried to tell me I wanted his stuff, wouldn't tell me the name of any suppliers of local timber but said he could source it if I insisted and quoted my three times the real price. Stupid.

Eventually we tracked down the last remaining estate sawmill in the area. We have to look at the problem holistically, thinking globally - and that means learning the science or accepting what the scientists say if we can't be bothered - and acting locally.

 

[yamin]

The week before last 2000 scientist met at Copenhagen and presented 1600 papers. I've only read a tiny proportion of the abstracts

You're right, we should go and find the complete view. I haven't the time though, which is why I rely on scientists presenting a balanced summary that allows me to look at both sides of the argument. At the moment I'm only being given your side.Thats not your fault, its not in your interests or responsibility to present for the other side. There must be someone somewhere who can, and hopefully they are getting together with your folks to have a good old thrash out of whats right, whats not, and what to do about it. I don;t expect anyone here to provide the answers, but I am still hoping that the scientists, for all aspects and machinations of this argument, will agree on a course to proceed that will
1. Be acceptable to all factions in the science and decision making world, and
2. Provide a practical list of things we can do (here I have to say that I don't have the same pessimism as some about the human race, it may be too little, but we ARE getting better at recycling, looking at more energy efficient ways of operating etc, doubtless there is a need for that 'will to do our bit' to be accelerated)
3. Justify or explain the list of things we can do so that those of us who cannot spend our (possibly limited) time poring over all the science, can see a balanced discussion that we can trust has been sensibly talked out, and not written in the voice of the loudest campaigner. This is by far the most likely way to get people to change, and, after all, its all we have isn't it? The alternative of scaremongering, whether true or not, is just not working, whereas recycling etc has had a measure of success that can hopefully be built upon.

 

[biffvernon]

The week before last 2000 scientist met at Copenhagen and presented 1600 papers. I've only read a tiny proportion of the abstracts

You're right, we should go and find the complete view. I haven't the time though, which is why I rely on scientists presenting a balanced summary that allows me to look at both sides of the argument.

Nooooo, you still don't get it. There weren't 800 papers saying we have a problem and 800 papers saying it's fine, don't panic. This is not an arguement with two sides. The scientific community is discussing detailed mechanisms: how to forecast non-linear dynamical systems such as melting ice sheets; response times of plankton growth to lowering sea water pH levels; shifts is monsoon rainfall patters; energy transfers is tropical storms etc etc 1600 times.

Do not expect a 'balanced' picture of a non-existant 'arguement'.

 

[yamin]

Ok, we're going round in circles. I'm stepping off this roundabout, its making me dizzyand must be boring for everyone else. Lets agree to agree on the basic concern, but agree to disagree on the best way to proceed. We can't bore this forum by having the same argument over and over. :|

 

[Schoolmarm]

which is why I rely on scientists presenting a balanced summary that allows me to look at both sides of the argument.

A scientist can only present the research, there won't be a "balanced summary", ever. It is journalists etc that will attempt to do this.

3. Justify or explain the list of things we can do so that those of us who cannot spend our (possibly limited) time poring over all the science, can see a balanced discussion that we can trust has been sensibly talked out, and not written in the voice of the loudest campaigner. This is by far the most likely way to get people to change, and, after all, its all we have isn't it? The alternative of scaremongering, whether true or not, is just not working, whereas recycling etc has had a measure of success that can hopefully be built upon.

Government has to do this. We are really lucky to have Biff giving us advance warnings. I don't understand how people can say they will do the opposite just because someone doesn't say it just right.
If I was walking into a field with a bull and a bloke shouted, "get out quick! you stupid b1tch!", I wouldn't argue about how he spoke to me, I would run out and find out why later.

 

[Lime]

whilst theres still the tiniest glimmer of hope to save ourselves and our planet.

Almost a contradiction in terms if it were not for the fact that mankind could change it's ways if it thought it had to.
Unfortunately for mankind (the planet's ok, it will survive ) the policy being put forward at present can be summed up relatively simply.

viz.. The planet must be "saved" (not quite sure for what) and mankind can do it by buying more green goods, recycling and switching the light off.
Anything else that has to be done can be done by somebody else as I (used collectively) have done enough.
Meanwhile airports can still be built, roads expanded and new cars bought.
The rather awkward idea that the population explosion of the human race has to be curtailed can be quietly forgotten and any debate stifled because it is all too difficult for most of us to think about.

The age of stupid?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

We can't bore this forum by having the same argument over and over. :|

Oh Yamin - don't give up yet. The history of this site is largely cyclical - you can look up any number of repeated discussions on damp, uPVC, linseed oil, the inherent evilness of COs (sorry Gareth), whether banned posters should still have access to the forum etc, etc. Even Penners' jokes have a certain deja vu about them.

More seriously, and I haven't followed this thread all the way through, the killer issue for me seems to be that we have reached the precarious postion we are now in with only a fraction of the world's population living in developed economies. Quite how we rescue the situation without exposing the rest of the world to unsustainable development and the consumerism and resource usage that entails, is beyond me. And if people think that the governments of these nations will sign up to the actions required, knowing the implications for their peoples and indeed their own retention of power, then they are more optimistic than I.

 

[Penners]

Even Penners' jokes have a certain deja vu about them.

Well, I'm immensely flattered (not to say amazed) by your use of the word "jokes". But I prefer to think of them as old cardigans - over-used, frayed at the elbows, but comfortingly familiar.

Slightly tangential to the topic but illustrative of the Age of Stupid, I've been in Cumbria for a few days working on a building project. I wanted some local semi-durable softwood. Went to a likely looking sawmill surrounded by fine forests of larch, Douglas and cedar. Every stack of timber in the yard had labels and stamps with names like Novsibirsky. The was a tanalising shed with white wood went in and emerged with the distinctive green hue of poison. And the idiot who ran the place tried to tell me I wanted his stuff, wouldn't tell me the name of any suppliers of local timber but said he could source it if I insisted and quoted my three times the real price.

Tangential? I hardly think so. Your Cumbrian experience is absolutely core to the whole problem. And - sorry to sound a note of pessimism - I don't believe we stand a snowball's chance in hell of solving it at all, let alone doing so in the next decade.

We are addicted to oil, cars, plastic, beef, holidays... and the rest of it all. But most of all we're addicted to the idea that we should always buy the cheapest - no matter where it comes from. The stellar growth of the Chinese economy in the last 15 years is empirical proof of that.

So, if a product can be made in Ashby de la Zouche and sold in Leicester for £20, but flown 10,000 miles from Shanghai and sold in Leicester for £15, then the local offering will invariably fail.

Never mind the carbon footprint, feel the price.

 

[MdB]

So, if a product can be made in Ashby de la Zouche and sold in Leicester for £20, but flown 10,000 miles from Shanghai and sold in Leicester for £15, then the local offering will invariably fail.

Never mind the carbon footprint, feel the price.

I don't particularly want to start the old cost = energy argument again, but it is likely that the carbon footprint of the more expensive good is higher than the low cost item. Just because it is local does not mean that it has a lower carbon footprint. The opposite can be true of course as well and finding out the true carbon cost is difficult.

 

[skier-hughes]

This board is indeed cyclical. Every now and again Robin Wiggs pops up, bores the pants off readers, then vanishes again for a while.

From someone who obviously know's :wink: One post and you know all about the cyclical nature of the board :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If ther is anyone who can make me laugh :wink:

 

[Penners]

Present and appalled.

P.E.

 

[skier-hughes]

Exactly, bye bye

 

[yamin]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a 'smiley' for a raspberry? :roll:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Given their new identity, it really does seem that DrWho is a timelord who has recently metamorphosed into a new character.

Now, who do we know who has nothing better to do than pop up here and make a fuss every now and again?

:idea:

 

[skier-hughes]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

<ignore>DrWho</ignore>

Graham - now you're just being provactive. :twisted: