What do Archaeologists & BAJRites think about Climate Change ?

[the invisible man]

Yes, climate change is natural and apparently does occur over much shorter periods than some would have us believe. Yes, humans probably do affect climate change: they are almost certainly not 100% responsible, but are unlikely to be 0% responsible.

I'm not convinced that what we are dong about it is the best answer however. Yes, reduce carbon footprints and so on, but it seems to me that we need to stop, or at least slow the rate of, population increase, or all other efforts are a waste of time.

[Maggie]

I think the population will reduce as the climate changes. The human race can do very little to influence population stability as people will feel that their human rights are being infringed. In fact come to think of it richer nations are the ones who consume most but generally have the lowest birth rates and poorer countries have higher birth rates but generally consume less. You can bet if we set out to limit population size we would insist that poorer countries cut their birth rates but in fact that would have little effect on overall consumption.

[YellowPete]

if i am correct

i beleive that if we reduce the carbon foot print, then the simplest way is for us to reinstitute an increase in population in order to supply mannual labour for an elite whom will over see the redistribution of resources along a globalised cultural agenda, so that the elite remain the same.

this will require everyone to become increasingly detached from emotional engagement with children, in order that the household mode of production, is sufficient through many hands make light work, to be compared with a national economic elite, thus the status quo may provide proportional assistance to the monetry income of the socila structured households.

thus we would be lucky if the population does anything other than rise sharply to combat acceptable standards of living, or fall sharply as the world decides that its more efficient to kill a few and carry on.

what do you think?

:face-huh:

[BAJR Host]

Give the Carl Sagan moment on another thread.. I just have to share this from those at Sexy Archaeology

http://sexyarchaeology.org/?p=901

here is a taster!

I, along with several other websites, received an email this week with details on a new series being developed for the History Channel called Seekers 2012. Here?s what the email said:

Mr. Hunt,

I am working on a documentary series for the History Channel focusing on the Mayan prediction that 2012 will be the END OF DAYS. We will be taking an academic approach to the mysterious prophecies set out by the Mayans and other cultures. We are looking for two investigators/researchers to host the series. Ideally our investigative team will be comprised of a man and a woman between the ages of 26 and 55, who are scientists, investigators and adventurers.

We are looking for people with advanced degrees (Anthropology, Ethnology, Mesoamerican studies etc. with an interest in 2012) who are open, curious and rigorous. Because this is a television series these investigators must also be articulate, passionate, knowledgeable and comfortable in front of an audience and a camera.

In each episode our Hosts will scour the globe investigating these ?End of Days? prophesies and other unexplained phenomena from history and the world. These Hosts will share their questions, investigative techniques, knowledge and gut instincts with the audience, as they seek answers to some of the world?s oldest and most ominous predictions.

If you or anybody you know may be interested, please feel free to pass this email along or contact me directly. More information as well as an application can be found at our website: Seekers 2012

Thanks so much and I look forward to hearing from you.

I groaned; deep and guttural, my head hit the desk. I hadn?t groaned as hard in months, not since I?d received an offer to host a series called Aliens Did It. Once again, pseudoscientific beliefs were attempting to get their foot in the door of public entertainment under the guise of ?scientific investigation?. I raised my head and cracked my knuckles. This time it was personal. This time it was trying to slip its slimy paws around archaeology. Well I wasn?t about to stand for it.

it ends with the immortal quote...

....Do me a favor producers of Seekers 2012, stop peddling pseudoscience. Stop trying to make a dime off of people?s paranoia. Stop promoting that misunderstanding. Stop misconstruing history and stop fucking with archaeology.

Sincerely disgusted,

Kurt Thomas Hunt
SexyArchaeology.org

now please please read the rest here:

http://sexyarchaeology.org/?p=901

[RedEarth]

Is Liberal Scam one of those there oxymorons? A bit like 'lenient Facist' or 'caring sociopath'.

I don't think the Green movement has as much to gain by distorting the evidence as the oil lobby, numerous large multinationals and some governments, nor the resources to do so.

[DiggerMoose]

The Green movement may not have as much to gain as the oil lobby et al but it still has more than enough to gain to serve as a motivating force to distort the evidence. Funding for courses and academic posts,public support, charity work and donations etc (several of my friends work for charities, the pay and conditions are good and are certainly better than in archaeology).
Humankind does affect its environment and the climate but to portray us as exclusively responsible for climate change is wrong. A falsehood told by the side which claims to hold the moral highground is just as wrong as a falsehood told by the oil lobby or other commercial interests, arguably more so.

[RedEarth]

The Green movement may not have as much to gain as the oil lobby et al but it still has more than enough to gain to serve as a motivating force to distort the evidence. Funding for courses and academic posts,public support, charity work and donations etc (several of my friends work for charities, the pay and conditions are good and are certainly better than in archaeology).
Humankind does affect its environment and the climate but to portray us as exclusively responsible for climate change is wrong. A falsehood told by the side which claims to hold the moral highground is just as wrong as a falsehood told by the oil lobby or other commercial interests, arguably more so.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that really makes a lot of sense. Are you suggesting that people in the 'Green movement' spend their careers lying so that they might get another year's funding? To say the Green movement have enough to gain from distorting evidence is really quite insulting - I hope you don't say that to your friends who work in this area.

The oil industry, by contrast, would surely stand to lose an enormous amount more if we all stopped using petrol and so have more to gain by spending resources promoting itself and discrediting the counter evidence. The Green movement also probably presents a lot more of its evidence openly in areas where it can be debated, hence leaving itself open to criticism. What do its opponents do behind the scenes?

I don't think that humans are necessarily solely responsible for climate change, and I'm not totally convinced that the current bout of climate change is necessarily any different to what has gone on before, but it would seem prudent to do something about it even if there is the slightest likelihood that it is our fault. There is a tiny likelihood of the planet being hit by a comet but resources are still spent keeping an eye on whether any are coming near us or not (as far as I know). The other difference is that cow's don't realise that their farts contribute to global warming; fire doesn't know that burning a huge forest down upsets the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are aware that we have a detrimental effect on the environment, and to claim it is a Greenwash is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand.

[DiggerMoose]

Sadly, I think that we are in agreement about most of this topic and that you have mistaken my post for an attack on the 'Green movement'(your phrase from an earlier post). This is not the case and I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the issue of climate change and the venality of big business. At no time in my post did I make the points that you seem to be refuting.

I was in fact, pointing out that while the Green lobby may have less motive to distort facts/lie about the issue, this does not mean that there is no motivation for such activities. Arguably, it could be said that as their avowed intent is the noble goal of saving the planet from catastrophe/environmental destruction, they might have more of a motive to manipulate facts where it suits their purposes (given the importance of the cause), than the oil companies do (especially given their lack of resources compared to the oil companies, which you rightly point out). I used academic salaries/grants etc as potential reasons for such behaviour by way of example.

Why is it insulting to suggest that personal gain (financial or in the fulfilment of an ethos/ideology) may serve as a motivation for lying/distorting the truth? At no point did I say that anyone in the Green movement had done so, merely that a motive for such obfuscation does exist. My point was that gain does not have to be of the level of profit made by big business for people to be motivated by it.

I appreciate that you may well not believe how little it takes for people to betray their personal values or a good cause but sadly it is true. During my 20 year working life I have frequently encountered colleagues who were prepared to lie to advance or save their jobs,break the law, pass blame on to others, and generally act in a venal fashion, often for comparatively little reward.

Within archaeology I have frequently worked for supervisors who ignored health and safety issues because they were worried about management reactions and their job security (personally there is no job which pays so well that it would make me risk my fellow-workers health rather than upset the management but...). Others have favoured their friends or people that they fancy over more skilled/dedicated employees. Several have driven staff to work while still under the effects of alcohol. Others have stood aside when they should have stood up for their workers and protested about conditions/treatment, just so as to keep their job. Few of them have been 'bad people', they are simply people whose desire to retain their jobs (personal gain) over-rode their professed beliefs.

I would find it pathetic if it weren't so distressing to see people sell themselves for a job which pays less thsan 20kpa. I may be an immoral swine but I'll be damned before I sell myself so cheaply.

Given these experiences then, I do not find the notion that people within the Green movement (or indeed in any position) might lie/distort the truth in order to preserve their jobs or help advance their cause, to be unreasonable. I repeat however that I did not say that they do; I merely pointed out that the fact that the Green movement may have less of a motive to dissemble/distort facts than the oil companies does not mean that they are not capable of doing so, and that are motives for them to do so.

In reference to my friends who work for green charities. Yes, i have told them of this opinion and they did not seem to find it insulting. Nor should they. All I am stating is that personal gain often leads people to lie, cheat, betray their beliefs, and into all manner of unpleasantries, and that members of the green movement can by no means be assumed to be exceptions to this rule purely because of their involvement in a good cause. This is hardly an unreasonable or offensive notion and should not be treated as such. To say otherwise is like saying that no chuchgoer will ever commit a crime or tell a lie, because they go to church, a non-sequitur of an argument if ever there was one.

The issue of climate change and humankinds effect on its living environment is obviously a relevant one. It is sufficiently important that no distortion of the facts in this case can be acceptable, as even one misrepresentation of the facts may lead to people who know little about the issue deciding that much of what the green movement says is rubbish or a lie.

In short I did not denigrate the green movement but merely stated that it, like the rest of humanity, is capable of inappropriate behaviour in the service of a cause or personal gain.

[garybrun]

I couldn't answer any of the questions on the Poll because they weren't suitable for my point of view.
I think Ive stated before no matter what we all do to TRY and save the planet we will end up destroying it. Just one bomb dropped on Afghanistan will make more pollution than I will make in a lifetime. We the peasants have no control over the governments that allow wars and such things.
I also think that a lot of scaremongery is going on... people in fear... gives other more power.
The recent reports in the media about scientists altering and hyping up the problem dont help much either.

[oldgirl]

I agree with Gary on the options, none really reflect my point of view (although some discussions above are closer) but there are elements of some that do.

I think Climate Change is happening, but I'm not entirely convinced that people are significantly contributing in the ways we are being led to believe. On the other hand, I was always concerned that there are much better things to do with oil (or rather the plastics etc we get from it) than burning it or turning it into bags for our shopping.

So, adapt yes. Stick our head in the sand about the effects of climate change - not a good idea. Be more sensible about how and when we use our resources- Good idea. Run around like a headless chicken buying new, 'greener' cars - not a great bet.

And if government (any government, not just ours and not just right now) want us to use public transport because climate change is caused by carbon emissions from our vehicles, try putting some subsidies in so that it's not ten time more expensive to take a train than drive a car on a specific journey...... And bear in mind the fact that a lot of what field archaeologists do can't be accessed from public transport.

I now want a 2p image, cos that's mine.