Ultralight Backpacking Ethically (UBE)

if the data that is used worldwide to make the case for global warming is fake, then yes it does mean the global warming is most likely a fraud. Especially since there are many scientists that have been skeptical and have been targets of smear campaigns against them.

Regardless if the article is opinion or not, it is still being written about facts. You can agree with the opinion or not, the facts are not in dispute.

You can choose to believe that these were just isolated incidents or not but to people like me who have been skeptics all along this comes as proof of the conspiracy by scientists using this stuff to wield political power.

James, you are really dragging this into completely different areas of discussion, abortion and such. I would be happy to discuss your ghastly viewpoints on this in another topic elsewhere.

"community of concerned scientists trying to make sure that their data is not mis-used by those who's non-evidence-based beliefs might choose tiny pieces of the huge body of evidence and take them out of context to try to "debunk" established theory, without really understanding the context of what they are doing. In the honest opinion of these scientists, that would be doing a huge disservice to mankind!"

That is some mighty spinning you are doing there. A good example of why people like you need to be opposed strongly, it is the end justifies the means mentality that is quite frankly dangerous. it the kind of thing that destroys nations and creates wars and such.

.

"Shucks, I was just thinking the same about you. :)"

yes I do realize that people who point out the truth are threatening to people such as yourself :)

"However, I AM stoked to know I don't have anything else to worry about now, and can wait in front of my 46" television for the Rapture."

Huh?

meh, unproductive.

yep you are probably right, it is pointless anyway because people here are set in their views.

Happy Thanksgiving guys,

>>James, you are really dragging this into completely different areas of discussion, abortion and such. I would be happy to discuss your ghastly viewpoints on this in another topic elsewhere.>>

Michael: With all due respect, you don't have the foggiest idea of what my viewpoints are! Please don't bear false witness against me, your neighbor and a fellow backpacker. I was simply giving a few examples of issues where EVIDENCE based thinking and BELIEF based thinking would lead you to different conclusions depending on where you are starting from.

>> That is some mighty spinning you are doing there. A good example of why people like you need to be opposed strongly, it is the end justifies the means mentality that is quite frankly dangerous. it the kind of thing that destroys nations and creates wars and such. >>

I'm sorry, again, I am really disappointed with this response. Please do not bear false witness against me. I am trying to have a civil and intelligent discourse and you and all you seem to be able to offer is personal attacks.

Why not respond to the actual points I am making?

1. A person's starting perspective automatically biasses the lens they use when looking at a situation or set of data.

2. There are no absolutes in this kind of complex issues. You and I are not omniscient, and do not have the right to judge another person's motivation for doing something.

3. There are a variety of ways any information can be interpreted. Our starting perspective and the relative important of evidence and belief in our thinking processes are critical to how we interpret the data.

4. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the environmental crisis on earth is entirely man-made, partially man-made, or not man-made at all… what matters is what we do about it starting today.

Anyway, please let's keep this civil and not attack one another. Most importantly, please don't ever make another judgement about MY motivations. It is rude and goes against God's commandments (Deut 5:20) as well as the rules of civil society.

"On the other hand, published data which proves that (say)violent crime is highly correlated with abortion laws in the US (i.e. when laws are changed to allow choice, crime statistics begin to improve 15-18 years later in almost every case and stay that way; when laws are changed to make abortion illegal, crime statistics suddenly get much worse 15-18 years later, and stay that way), seems to be completely ignored by the anti-abortion lobby."

That statement certain gives me enough information to derive your viewpoint. I also question those findings, what is it based on? abortion has been legal for quite a while.

"Why not respond to the actual points I am making?"

I did, I said you were making quite a spin out of the facts. You implied they might be falsifying data because the other side was perceived to be unfair in criticizing them so in order to win the issue it was justified. Because they are right of course. That is the end justifying the means and I rightfully point out that this type of thinking is what ends up causing the vast majority of conflict in the world.

"1. A person's starting perspective automatically biasses the lens they use when looking at a situation or set of data."

Sure, I agree.

"2. There are no absolutes in this kind of complex issues. You and I are not omniscient, and do not have the right to judge another person's motivation for doing something."

I can make any judgment I want, we still live in a somewhat free country, at least for now. People's motivations are really important points to consider in an argument.

You yourself point out multiple times that we approach the issue from our own particular lenses, it is pertinent.

"3. There are a variety of ways any information can be interpreted. Our starting perspective and the relative important of evidence and belief in our thinking processes are critical to how we interpret the data."

OK I agree somewhat

"4. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the environmental crisis on earth is entirely man-made, partially man-made, or not man-made at all… what matters is what we do about it starting today."

It makes all the difference in the world since the remedies being proposed will have substantial economic impact on society. If it is not man made then taking drastic action is not a very good idea, and it would be futile. In fact the evidence apparently shows global cooling might be occurring.

"Anyway, please let's keep this civil and not attack one another. Most importantly, please don't ever make another judgement about MY motivations. It is rude and goes against God's commandments (Deut 5:20) as well as the rules of civil society."

Pointing out your possible motivations is not an attack, it is key to the discussion, the consideration of peoples motives is very important. And pointing out that I am disturbed by certain comments in not an attack either, I am opposed to the ideas and comments not to the people making them. I have nothing personal against you and would be happy to sit down, chat and have a beer with you. If you perceive any personal hostility I assure you there is none from me.

My comment to DaveT was a wisecrack in response to a wisecrack, hopefully taken in good fun.

@Michael:
I am thankful that you meant no personal offense in your comments about me being "dangerous" and "the type of person who should be strongly opposed", etc… I actually did take offense. This is strong language indeed.

Anyway, not to worry, I truly hope that you and your family have a wonderful Holiday, enjoy the turkey and remember how privaleged we all are to live in society which embraces differences of opinion and allows us to have these kinds of debates without redress.

Happy thanksgiving my friend.

Peace, James.

Let me ask this: let's say that all of us are completely unbiased and have no opinions here nor there about whether global warming or any other environmental problem exists. Let's say we are travelers from another solar system, coming upon Earth and we are evaluating what the conditions are here. How would we go about looking at conditions here and coming up with criteria for what we see? What would you do? Would you sit back and learn about it all vicariously through newspaper articles about emails, or use some other approach? How would you make whatever you have found however you have found it, believable to the others you are investigating the issue with? How can you KNOW and PROVE that what you find is true?

Let's make a really simple example to illustrate how hard this is: prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the computer you are reading this post with actually exists. Remember, your word is just some text on my computer and I have no idea whether I can believe what you say simply because you say so.

Now take this test and apply it to a global scale, something so big it engulfs each and everyone of us completely, to the point where we cannot even perceive the whole, and if we were to find a place where we can see the entire planet we would be so far away that individuals are no longer visible. What would you do to look at the conditions of that huge place?

I think there is only one answer to how it is done.

Peace James, as I said I think some of your logic is potentially dangerous but not you as a person. I can look back and recall plenty of dangerous ideas I have had that should be strongly opposed too. :)

Do you think about your environmental impact as you buy/make gear?

Sometimes.

Would you compromise weight for a piece of reclaimed or recycled gear?

Not adverse to the idea, depends on what it is.

How do you view the use of down and other animal-derived products?

I was thinking about this a little while ago. I am effectively a vegetarian, and opposed to blah blah blah. I figure that X (down) is a byproduct of the blah blah blah, and would rather have it put to use instead of wasted. However, I also hate putting money in certain people's pocketses for taking advantage of blah blah blah. Ambivalence, but it's a non-issue for me, as I go synthetic. So i don't really think about it too much.

EDIT-Oh dear lord, didn't know i was bumping a month old thread.