Icelanding Volcano and Moralizing about the environment

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here is a brief excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail column

The spread of ash across Europe, leading to the grounding of flights and the closure of airports, is being interpreted – even celebrated – as evidence of nature’s “fury,” in contrast to weak, pathetic mankind.

In Britain, some of the supposedly most liberal and rationalist media outlets have found it hard to contain their glee. For The Observer, the eruption has provided “a reminder of our status in relation to our planet over which we have arrogantly seized stewardship. We imagine ourselves its master and yet with one modest belch it hems us into our little island, sweeping instantly from the skies the aeroplane, which we consider to be an example of the irrepressible genius of our species.”

This idea that the volcano has exposed how stupid mankind is to believe he can control nature with his “arrogance” and “genius” is becoming widespread among the opinion-forming classes. The Daily Mail, a British tabloid that has published dramatic photos of the volcanic eruption and invited readers to behold “the terrifying cauldron of lava and lightning that has brought chaos to our airports,” celebrated the fact that even a relatively “modest rumbling” in the underworld is “enough to throw a gigantic spanner into the works of modern life.”

A Guardian writer thinks the ash has provided humanity with a vision of the low-carbon, flight-free, clear-sky future we must allegedly move toward. “Greens should celebrate this timely reminder of what the world might look like when the oil runs out,” he said. Radio and TV shows have featured endless interviews with people saying how delighted they are to be able to look into the sky without seeing or hearing a plane. A British Broadcasting Corp. economics correspondent says the volcano has given us a “glimpse of a post-carbon morning.”

...The Edmonton Journal ran an article headlined “Volcano exposes mankind’s limits,” arguing that Eyjafjallajokull’s belch has exposed the “striking incapacity of human beings, however smugly sophisticated, to either predict such phenomena or do much about them.”

Let's set aside the psychologic implications of self-hatred for a moment.

So to summarize, the left wing enviro-crowd is using the volcanic eruption to remind us that the earth is big, vast and uncontrollable and humans are a tiny, arrogant flea?

Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves?

After all, what's more arrogant than believing that by changing the type of car you drive to work, you can actually have an effect on the heavens and the climate?

Just sayin'.

Edited April 25, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[Michael Hardner]

Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves?

Yes, they should. Especially when it comes to using the term "we" when discussing what others have to do to clean up the environment, but not using the term "we" to discuss the media disconnect that they're a part of.

I just wanted to post this so that you know I don't 100% disagree with you 100% of the time. Sometimes it's 90%.

[wyly]

Here is a brief excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail column

Let's set aside the psychologic implications of self-hatred for a moment.

So to summarize, the left wing enviro-crowd is using the volcanic eruption to remind us that the earth is big, vast and uncontrollable and humans are a tiny, arrogant flea?

Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves?

After all, what's more arrogant than believing that by changing the type of car you drive to work, you can actually have an effect on the heavens and the climate?

Just sayin'.

you completely missed the issue and your "left wing" slur identifies you as an irrational ideologue.. logic of fact is of no consequence to you it's all about the politics, you could have made an observation but no you had to taint it with a political barb...

the volcano was a minor event, the grounding of planes was bigger event...despite the volcano's emissions there was a decrease in CO2 emissions by grounding the planes, one small volcano can't match the thousands of daily flights...so yes changing the type of car you drive multiplied by millions of other drivers doing the same has a cumulative effect of reducing CO emissions...

Edited April 25, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

Let's set aside the psychologic implications of self-hatred for a moment.

So to summarize, the left wing enviro-crowd is using the volcanic eruption to remind us that the earth is big, vast and uncontrollable and humans are a tiny, arrogant flea?

Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves?

After all, what's more arrogant than believing that by changing the type of car you drive to work, you can actually have an effect on the heavens and the climate?

Just sayin'.

you went a long way and tried hard in attempting to leverage a weak and grossly opinionated article into your baseless ramblings over the, "self-hatred, moralizing and arrogance" of what you label the "left wing enviro-crowd". The article itself draws upon nothing other than personal comments of writers/correspondents from, "The Observer, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The BBC and The Edmonton Journal"... certainly nothing that would dissuade anyone with pre-conceived notions... or an agenda... from prophesying over "self-hatred, moralizing and arrogance".

[CANADIEN]

Here is a brief excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail column

Let's set aside the psychologic implications of self-hatred for a moment.

So to summarize, the left wing enviro-crowd is using the volcanic eruption to remind us that the earth is big, vast and uncontrollable and humans are a tiny, arrogant flea?

Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves?

After all, what's more arrogant than believing that by changing the type of car you drive to work, you can actually have an effect on the heavens and the climate?

Just sayin'.

Now that I have stopped laughing (at you)...

There is nothing self-hating in acknowledging that there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop. And there is nothing arrogant in understanding that the less harmful emissions we produce the less harm we cause to our environment.

The arrogance (to use your term) is in the belief that we as a species can do anything we want, and in particular that we can waste and pollute with no repercussion whatsoever.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The arrogance (to use your term) is in the belief that we as a species can do anything we want, and in particular that we can waste and pollute with no repercussion whatsoever.

But that is the punchline....any fear of "repercussions" are equally self serving and arrogant. The planet doesn't give a rat's ass what we do to it...it will survive just fine....for a while.

Edited April 25, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[JerrySeinfeld]

There is nothing self-hating in acknowledging that there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop. And there is nothing arrogant in understanding that the less harmful emissions we produce the less harm we cause to our environment.

"Harmful emissions"? Carbon Dioxide is food for plants. Grade 6 science. Look it up.

It's odd you can't even see the oxymoron you just typed. But I totally agree with the first half of the statement:

Indeed, there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop.

One of them is the ever changing climate of the earth.

As I drove past "The Chief" the other day I was awestruck at it's size and beauty, realizing it was once under hundreds of meters of ice.

Then I passed a prius on the highway and started laughing. The poor sap behind the wheel couldn't understand the irony of his arrogance, driving a prius to save the earth from future Chiefs. Funny shit. A perfect picture, really: A guy in a prius driving past something as impressively humbilng as the Chief, created by a melted glacier millions of years before the first smokestack, elegantly illustrating the meaninglessness of his impressively large ego.

Edited April 25, 2010 by JerrySeinfeld

[theatheismwars]

the really SHARP END OF OCCAM’S RAZOR…

they mix SKEPTICISM with ATHEISM…

KABOOM…

Now I want you to listen to this little f*cker...

Randi:

When I see your UGLY FACE I understand why you are an atheist

_________________________________

now I want you to watch this video of DELUSION...

with the atheists:

they start begging when they start dying...

_____________________

Atheists,

but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH... therefore you FAIL...

the Death of Ath*ism

*********************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg

DEATH TRAP

**********************************

THE REAL QUESTION:

DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

AND THE ANSWER - NO!

Atheists,

GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE

you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…

but you LOST…

THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

Crystal Night, Atheists!

FINALE:

Have I said this before?

**********************************

http://warsofatheism.free0host.com/

***********************************

PULLING THE PLUG on atheism

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

bye

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

*************************************

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element…

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

********************************

***************************LIGHT*********

************************************

_________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U

E=MC2

____________

DOWN THE TOILET!!!

_____________

LAMB POWER!

_____________________

--------------------------------------

UNDERSTAND!!!?

Shermer - Randi - Myers - Harris - Dawkins VS. NOSTRADAMUS - EINSTEIN - MARKUZE

you are ANNIHILATED!!!

crystal night is a reference to when the SUN IS ECLIPSED...

--------------------------------------

FINAL WARNINGS THIS WEEKEND

Repent and turn to God or be destroyed...

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

********************************

***************************LIGHT*********

************************************ or death...

LIGHT!

Edited April 25, 2010 by theatheismwars

[Guest TrueMetis]

"Harmful emissions"? Carbon Dioxide is food for plants. Grade 6 science. Look it up.

Cause CO2 is the only emission we produce.

Edited April 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Peter F]

FINAL WARNINGS THIS WEEKEND

...please god...

[JerrySeinfeld]

Cause CO2 is the only emission we produce.

Yea - lets all switch to hydrogen fuel cells because the only emission is H20 Vapour.

Problem is CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas emission. Number 1? Water vapour.

[CANADIEN]

"Harmful emissions"? Carbon Dioxide is food for plants. Grade 6 science. Look it up.

It's odd you can't even see the oxymoron you just typed.

I wasn't referring to carbon dioxide specifically. But since you mention it... What do you think happen to the carbon dioxide not absorbed by plants? Clue... plants are not humans or domesticated animal, they don't get obese.

Indeed, there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop.

And when somebody "on the left" says that, you accuse them of being self-hating. Now, if that's not contradiction...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yea - lets all switch to hydrogen fuel cells because the only emission is H20 Vapour.

Problem is CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas emission. Number 1? Water vapour.

I was thinking more of things like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (Being dealt with) and nitrogen oxides. Also Hydrogen fuel cells are a pipe dream with current technology it take to much energy to make the hydrogen so it's a net loss.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Also Hydrogen fuel cells are a pipe dream with current technology it take to much energy to make the hydrogen so it's a net loss.

The "net loss" is the price to be paid for "clean energy". H2 fuel cells are already being adopted in the material handling industry where emissions are not wanted (e.g. fork lifts).

http://www.iuvmag.com/articles/2008_05-05.html

[waldo]

Yea - lets all switch to hydrogen fuel cells because the only emission is H20 Vapour.

Problem is CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas emission. Number 1? Water vapour.

buddy, you're not even in the game. It's actually been some time since I've read anyone seriously utter the "CO2 is plant food" meme. Water vapour? Really... that's your go-to? Really?

despite your fake misty-eyed fondness for a particular mountain and your want to denigrate that Prius owner, your own brand of arrogance shines through brightly.

[CANADIEN]

Human impact on climate is a bit more that what the deniers claim, and a bit less than what Gore and Co. claim.

But guess what? Even without it there is still a lot to worry about the way we treat or environment. One example is mercury. Last time I checked, it is not a greenhouse gas. Yet, it is harmful to human and animal life, and the effect of some industrial practices (such as environment-unfriendly mining)is documented. We also know the effect of asbestos, no name but one other example.

There cannot be any doubt that waste and pollution have an effect of the environment we live in.

Edited April 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

...There cannot be any doubt that waste and pollution have an effect of the environment we live in.

Yet we are part of the "environment". Our "destructive actions" are perfectly....ummmm...natural!

[CANADIEN]

Yet we are part of the "environment". Our "destructive actions" are perfectly....ummmm...natural!

Let us know when you have something intelligent to contribute.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yet we are part of the "environment". Our "destructive actions" are perfectly....ummmm...natural!

Since when did natural mean good?

[CANADIEN]

Yea - lets all switch to hydrogen fuel cells because the only emission is H20 Vapour.

Problem is CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas emission. Number 1? Water vapour.

Your problem is that the presence of water vapour has remained virtually unchanged as a result of the industrial revolutions, unlike CO2 or N2O. And that it does not have the same harmful effect. Or that it remains in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks, a lot less than CO2 (between 15 and 200 years - plants must have fone on a wordwide diet ) or CF4 (50 years.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let us know when you have something intelligent to contribute.

Still waiting for the same from you...no need to let us know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since when did natural mean good?

"Good" is a value judgement...the planet doesn't play such foolish games.

[waldo]

"Good" is a value judgement...the planet doesn't play such foolish games.

so says the mind-numbing, one-liner sensei with a proclivity towards the hackneyed banal

[bush_cheney2004]

so says the mind-numbing, one-liner sensei with a proclivity towards the hackneyed banal

...with responses from the tiny moth who can't resist the global warming flame.

[Guest TrueMetis]

"Good" is a value judgement...the planet doesn't play such foolish games.

That's because the planet is a ball of dirt and water.