--0-1919000358-1197428965=:8463
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
JP,=0A=0Awell commented.=0A=0AWhilst climate change is something that most
=
creatures can probably adapt to (on the news yesterday there was evidence
t=
hat polar bears survived the last major interglacial period, with mean
glob=
al temperatures over 6 deg. C higher than now and much higher sea levels),
=
habitat destruction is still going to be the primary cause of most species
=
extinction. All the talk and focus is now on climate change, which is only
=
a symptom of the way humanity abuses and destroys the rest of life on
earth=
for its own very short sighted gain. In the media's eye, habitat
destructi=
on is not the big issue it ought to be. :(=0A=0ARoger.=0A =0ARoger C.
KENDR=
ICK Ph.D. =0ASenior Conservation Officer, Fauna Conservation,
=0AKadoorie=
Farm & Botanic Garden, Hong Kong =0Ahttp://www.kfbg.org/
=0A =0AC & R
W=
ildlife (sole proprietor), Tai Po, Hong Kong =0Ahkmoths@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=0A =
=0AHong Kong Moths - http://asia.geocities.com/hkmoths/
=0A =0Adiscussion
=
groups =0A - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hkmoths/
=0A -
http://www.h=
kwildlife.net =0A - http://www.hkls-forum.org/=0A=0A-----
Original Message
=
----=0AFrom: JPPelham <zapjammer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=0ATo: Leps List
<LEPS-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=0ASent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:14:47 AM=0ASubject:
Clim=
ate Change=0A=0AAll,=0A=0AI have been staying strictly out of the Global
Te=
mperature debate; it=0A has been and remains a contentious and fruitless
di=
scussion on=0A list-serves. However, after reviewing the various
exchanges=
and visiting some=0A of the suggested websites, my conscience will not
all=
ow me to refrain=0A any longer. There are obviously agendas at play. I
ca=
nnot fathom all of=0A them, nor will I make the attempt.=0A=0AGlobal
Warmin=
g/Cooling, CO2, Hot/Cool Sun...whatever. A majority of=0A scientists
study=
ing earth=C3=A2s climate are concerned over the potential=0A effects that
h=
umans are having on the climate. I think this statement is=0A beyond
dispu=
te. As an example of how people try to negate this fact, I=0A heard one
so=
ul proclaim that upwards of 30% of the scientists at a=0A 'Bali Symposium'
=
refused to sign a declaration of consensus on the=0A subject,
demonstrating=
considerable dissent. I later discovered that these=0A recalcitrant
scien=
tists were upset that the measures discussed were too=0A lenient! Was
this=
is a simple oversight on the part of this poor soul,=0A or blatant
misrepr=
esentation for the purpose of misleading people?=0A This happens so often
=
that I suspect an intent to defraud.=0A=0APeople do misrepresent
themselves=
.. They can also be misrepresented.=0A Both are lies, but apparently,
'we'=
are becoming immune to dishonesty.=0A It seems to me that we shall not
kn=
ow who is 'right' as to whether=0A humans influence climate for at least
ha=
lf a century. But there is=0A something unsaid in all of these arguments.
=
There is something that disturbs=0A me about what seems a widespread anti
=
environmentalism. It is possible=0A that it has something to do with
these=
agendas I cannot fathom.=0A=0AWhile cruising the internet, I read some
inc=
redibly absurd arguments=0A from people who seem supremely qualified to
pos=
t them. There is a lot of=0A that going around these days. As a result
of=
my incredulity, I formed=0A some questions. I think the answers are
obvio=
us enough, but I would=0A also guess that they will generate great
indignan=
ce.=0A=0A1. Can there ever be too many people on the planet? Is ever
incre=
asing=0A human population growth not only conceivable but
preferable?=0A=0A=
2. Can 'Human Progress' and development of resources expand=0A
indefinitely=
? Is there no end to human potential?=0A=0A3. Is it demonstrable that the
=
human presence on our planet does not=0A cause stress to environments and
t=
he diversity of organisms that dwell=0A within them?=0A=0A4. Can a secular
=
argument be generated that humans are, collectively,=0A 'better' than any
o=
ther creature?=0A=0ACan anybody examine our natural world and find
evidence=
that any=0A creature is better than any other? How can it be possible
to=
show that we=0A humans are superior creatures, especially in light of our
=
ephemeral=0A existence? One cannot merely cite our 'accomplishments' as
ev=
idence of our=0A superiority. A complex creature is not 'better' than
anot=
her simply=0A as a product of its complexity. Is an ant better than a
soli=
tary wasp?=0A=0AThe reason I exclude spiritual arguments seems obvious. I
=
know that=0A there are spiritual arguments for and against, just as in the
=
secular=0A world. However, the sources for spiritual sup****t of an
argumen=
t are not=0A subject to the same scrutiny that secular facts can be. They
=
are <de=0A facto> unassailable.=0A=0AIn my nearly 60 years on this planet,
=
I have seen one after another of=0A my favorite places developed or
destroy=
ed. This has been incremental=0A and, sorrily, I do not see an end in
sigh=
t. Many of you of similar=0A experience (as old as me!) will note the
same=
.. The only defense I can=0A distill from the many arguments in sup****t
of =
human progress, is that=0A people come first, all else is (apparently)
subs=
ervient to our needs. If=0A this is so, if people are actually so
precious=
, then it would seem that=0A we ought to consider what the next several
cen=
turies will present us.=0A Instead, we plow straight ahead, blissfully
una=
ware of consequences.=0A=0AIf incremental development and human progress
co=
ntinue at the same pace=0A as they have, there will be no room for e.g.
but=
terflies & moths, save=0A those that can adapt to our
environments.=0A=0ATh=
at concerns me.=0A=0AJPPelham=0A=0A=0A =0A
--------------------------------=
---------------------------- =0A=0A For subscription and related
informat=
ion about LEPS-L visit:=0A=0A http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
=0A=
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ASend instant messages to your online friends
http://u=
k.messenger.yahoo.com
--0-1919000358-1197428965=:8463
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;}
--></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:garamond,new
york,times,serif;font-size:=
12pt">JP,<br><br>well commented.<br><br>Whilst climate change is something
=
that most creatures can probably adapt to (on the news yesterday there was
=
evidence that polar bears survived the last major interglacial period,
with=
mean global temperatures over 6 deg. C higher than now and much higher
sea=
levels), habitat destruction is still going to be the primary cause of
mos=
t species extinction. All the talk and focus is now on climate change,
whic=
h is only a symptom of the way humanity abuses and destroys the rest of
lif=
e on earth for its own very short sighted gain. In the media's eye,
habitat=
destruction is not the big issue it ought to be.
:(<br><br>Roger.<br><div>=
</div>Roger C. KENDRICK Ph.D. <br>Senior Conservation Officer,
Fauna=
Conservation, <br>Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden, Hong Kong <br><a
rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank"
href=3D"http://www.kfbg.org/">http://ww=
w.kfbg.org/</a> <br> <br>C & R Wildlife (sole proprietor), Tai Po,
H=
ong Kong <br>hkmoths@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<br> <br>Hong Kong Moths - <a
rel=3D"nof=
ollow" target=3D"_blank"
href=3D"http://asia.geocities.com/hkmoths/">http:/=
/asia.geocities.com/hkmoths/</a> <br> <br>discussion groups <br> - <a rel=
=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank"
href=3D"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/=
Hkmoths/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hkmoths/</a>
<br> - <a
rel=3D"=
nofollow" target=3D"_blank"
href=3D"http://www.hkwildlife.net">http://www.h=
kwildlife.net</a> <br> - <a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank"
href=3D"http=
://www.hkls-forum.org/">http://www.hkls-forum.org/</a><div
style=3D"font-fa=
mily: garamond,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><br><div style=
=3D"font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size:
12pt;">--=
--- Original Message ----<br>From: JPPelham
<zapjammer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Leps List
<LEPS-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
12:14:=
47 AM<br>Subject: Climate Change<br><br>All,<br><br>I have been staying
str=
ictly out of the Global Temperature debate; it=0A has been and remains a
co=
ntentious and fruitless discussion on=0A list-serves. However, after
=
reviewing the various exchanges and visiting some=0A of the suggested
websi=
tes, my conscience will not allow me to refrain=0A any longer. There
=
are obviously agendas at play. I cannot fathom all of=0A them, nor
wi=
ll I make the attempt.<br><br>Global Warming/Cooling, CO2, Hot/Cool
Sun...w=
hatever. A majority of=0A scientists studying earth=C3=A2s climate
ar=
e concerned over the potential=0A effects that humans are having on the
cli=
mate. I think this statement is=0A beyond dispute. As an
exampl=
e of how people try to negate this fact, I=0A heard one soul proclaim that
=
upwards of 30% of the scientists at a=0A 'Bali Symposium' refused to sign
a=
declaration of consensus on the=0A subject, demonstrating considerable
dis=
sent. I later discovered that these=0A recalcitrant scientists were
u=
pset that the measures discussed were too=0A lenient! Was this is a
s=
imple oversight on the part of this poor soul,=0A or blatant
misrepresentat=
ion for the purpose of misleading people?=0A This happens so often
th=
at I suspect an intent to defraud.<br><br>People do misrepresent
themselves=
.. They can also be misrepresented.=0A Both are lies, but
appare=
ntly, 'we' are becoming immune to dishonesty.=0A It seems to me that
=
we shall not know who is 'right' as to whether=0A humans influence climate
=
for at least half a century. But there is=0A something unsaid in all
=
of these arguments. There is something that disturbs=0A me about
what=
seems a widespread anti environmentalism. It is possible=0A that it
=
has something to do with these agendas I cannot fathom.<br><br>While
cruisi=
ng the internet, I read some incredibly absurd arguments=0A from people
who=
seem supremely qualified to post them. There is a lot of=0A that
goi=
ng around these days. As a result of my incredulity, I formed=0A
some=
questions. I think the answers are obvious enough, but I would=0A
al=
so guess that they will generate great indignance.<br><br>1. Can there
ever=
be too many people on the planet? Is ever increasing=0A human
popula=
tion growth not only conceivable but preferable?<br><br>2. Can 'Human
Progr=
ess' and development of resources expand=0A indefinitely? Is there
no=
end to human potential?<br><br>3. Is it demonstrable that the human
presen=
ce on our planet does not=0A cause stress to environments and the
diversity=
of organisms that dwell=0A within them?<br><br>4. Can a secular argument
b=
e generated that humans are, collectively,=0A 'better' than any other
creat=
ure?<br><br>Can anybody examine our natural world and find evidence that
an=
y=0A creature is better than any other? How can it be possible to
sh=
ow that we=0A humans are superior creatures, especially in light of our
eph=
emeral=0A existence? One cannot merely cite our 'accomplishments' as
=
evidence of our=0A superiority. A complex creature is not 'better'
th=
an another simply=0A as a product of its complexity. Is an ant
better=
than a solitary wasp?<br><br>The reason I exclude spiritual arguments
seem=
s obvious. I know that=0A there are spiritual arguments for and
again=
st, just as in the secular=0A world. However, the sources for
spiritu=
al sup****t of an argument are not=0A subject to the same scrutiny that
secu=
lar facts can be. They are <de=0A facto>
unassailable.<br><br>I=
n my nearly 60 years on this planet, I have seen one after another of=0A
my=
favorite places developed or destroyed. This has been
incremental=0A=
and, sorrily, I do not see an end in sight. Many of you of similar=
=0A experience (as old as me!) will note the same. The only defense
I=
can=0A distill from the many arguments in sup****t of human progress, is
th=
at=0A people come first, all else is (apparently) subservient to our
needs.=
If=0A this is so, if people are actually so precious, then it would
=
seem that=0A we ought to consider what the next several centuries will
pres=
ent us.=0A Instead, we plow straight ahead, blissfully unaware of
con=
sequences.<br><br>If incremental development and human progress continue
at=
the same pace=0A as they have, there will be no room for e.g. butterflies
=
& moths, save=0A those that can adapt to our environments.<br><br>That
=
concerns me.<br><br>JPPelham<br><br><br> <br>
-----------------------------=
------------------------------- <br><br> For subscription and
relate=
d information about LEPS-L visit:<br><br> <a
href=3D"http://www.peab=
ody.yale.edu/other/lepsl"
target=3D"_blank">http://www.peabody.yale.edu/oth=
er/lepsl</a> <br> <br><br></div><br></div></div><br>Send instant messages
t=
o your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
</body></html>
--0-1919000358-1197428965=:8463--
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
|
