Should birders be conservationists? (1 Viewer)

[Charles Letterman]

I often sit here wondering whether it's worth continuing with this kind of thread once it gets into the realm of the personal. My arguments are conceptual, backed by personal beliefs if you like, but not directed at any particular person. But that's always the danger, isn't it? You open up a debate and the ones who don't understand even the basics of democratic debate start jeering and mud-slinging.
Awareness of global warming has existed in some circles for more than 20 years. It's only though in the last few years that those circles have been granted access to a wider audience, in the face of overriding evidence from around the world. At least 20 years have been lost, with the world paralysed by the lack of resolve caused by the actions and so-called opinions of the self-interested.
Getting personal now: people like yourselves should not be allowed to waste more of society's valuable time and efforts. Global warming is a fact and anybody with two eyes in their head and at least an equivalent number of brain cells can see it. Move over and let the world try and solve the problem.
BY the way Mr Osprey W I would check your sources, if you have any - there are at least 3 reasons why I am not God:
1) The Omnipotent doesn't "vote" or "suggest" or even ask for another opinion
2) If I were God I would have given myself more hair
3) I did actually apply for the post but I was told that Exxon already had a company chairman.

Steve
http://www.birdinginspain.com

And that post sums up why global warming and climate change has taken so long to be acknowledged by the general population. The subject has been preached rather than debated. Dictated rather than marketed.

Global warming is a fact and anybody with two eyes in their head and at least an equivalent number of brain cells can see it. Move over and let the world try and solve the problem.

Hardly a statement convincing anyone to join the bandwagon. Why am right about this? Because I say so. Brilliant!

For the record I have now moved round to believing that something drastic is happening to our planet, you can call it climate change if you like. I would have been quicker to acknowledge the fact if some fanatics would have backed up their beliefs with evidence rather than dismiss opponents without debate.

Also, I believe that there are more immediate problems in the world at the moment, and that we will destroy ourselves through war and greed far quicker than the result of leaving our TVs on stand-by overnight.

 

[Pete Mella]

I really wonder how people who claim climate change is a load of old balls explain the facts of disappearing ice caps, the drying up of African lakes, the increasing desertification of certain parts of the world, and extreme weather records being broken left right and centre across the world. In temperate countries like Britain all we're getting at present is a tendency of slightly warmer or wetter weather, and strange natural patterns such as egrets and certain warblers changing their ranges, so we have the luxury of pretending it's not happening. On the equator or in Arctic regions people are already facing much bigger problems, and ironically they're the ones least likely to be pumping out CO2 in the first place.

A healthy scepticism is a good thing, and everything we're forcefed by the media/governments should be scrutinised. But I don't understand how the fact that some scientists are sceptical about climate change is somehow seen as proof that the whole thing's hokum. And yes some scientists are paid by oil companies. And some are paid by environmental groups. But there are many, many independent scientists claiming it's a real threat, not just those on the payroll of interested parties.

A very small, but vocal, minority of scientists believe in creationism. Does that automatically mean the majority that believe in evolution are talking "hokum"?

 

[bkrownd]

And that post sums up why global warming and climate change has taken so long to be acknowledged by the general population. The subject has been preached rather than debated. Dictated rather than marketed.

Of course it was debated. Debated long ago by people educated enough to understand the details. If it hurts your little feelings that you were left out, too bad. Try to appoint yourself an instant expert in somebody else's field and you're just going to be, rightly enough, laughed at.

 

[Sancho]

Most people are 'conservationists' to the point where it becomes inconvenient to them. They may recycle wine bottles, but wouldn't search out wine sold only in plastic bottles. They drive small cars, but wouldn't ditch the car altogether in favour of public transport.

An interesting point, Charles. But the logical extension is that existing as a human is anti-conservationist, and that voluntarily deciding not to exist anymore is the only "conservationist" action. I might cycle to work, recycle my glass, etc., but I still have to eat, heat my home, etc., so I leave a Carbon Footprint...it would be inconvenient to me to live at the latitude I do and not use energy to heat, cook, etc. (I mention this only in the spirit of friendly exchange and appreciation of views, I don´t want to get into the mud-slinging stuff, it´s all a bit pointless.....I have a feeling that we´re going to Hell in a Handcart, whether Climate Change is Human-induced or not, and that we might as well be nice to each other on the Way...)

 

[talon_dfa]

...The greatest threat to all wildlife (and humans) is climate change...

I would suggest the greatest threat is and has always been human population growth. Anthropogenic caused climate change is just a recent potential spin-off.

 

[ColinD]

.....I have a feeling that we´re going to Hell in a Handcart, whether Climate Change is Human-induced or not, and that we might as well be nice to each other on the Way...)

Well put Sancho. I've have the same feeling myself. Unfortunately I think climate change is too far gone and I don't think we could stop it now even if the will was there. Unfortunately the will isn't there and never will be until it's far too late.

 

[James_Owen]

Hardly a statement convincing anyone to join the bandwagon. Why am right about this? Because I say so. Brilliant!

For the record I have now moved round to believing that something drastic is happening to our planet, you can call it climate change if you like. I would have been quicker to acknowledge the fact if some fanatics would have backed up their beliefs with evidence rather than dismiss opponents without debate.

Oh, I really think we choose what we listen to. Whether it's David Attenborough, Al Gore, George Monbiot or the many others like them, we have authoritative voices out there explaining all of these things. Some people just turn over to watch Top Gear instead, and there is something willful that disregard for the truth.
Given this the responsibility of changing opinion falls on the rest of us, and that's why we have to 'preach', or lobby to tax the bejesus out of those people keeping their fingers in their ears.

 

[deborah4]

And that post sums up why global warming and climate change has taken so long to be acknowledged by the general population. The subject has been preached rather than debated. Dictated rather than marketed.

The stumbling block to acceptance of the realities of climate change is that it would come with the realisation that one needs to do something about it on a personal level and unfortunately, that entails lifestyle choices that many just aren't prepared to make as it inevitably involves some degree of personal sacrifice (whether that be by reduction of our consumption of fossil fuel energy by getting rid of the car/reducing it's use, especially for hobby related activity, reducing our living space, reducing the number of children we have etc etc).

Hoping people will make those sacrifices voluntarily through 'good healthy debate' doesn't seemed to have worked does it - especially when one side of the debate either refuses to acknowledge there is even a problem or, perhaps realises there is, but it's up to everyone else to do something about it. Even worse, those who slur and diminish the efforts some people are making to encourage others and moderate their own activities, thus (deliberately?) spreading a feeling of hopelessness, apathy and malaise into an issue that has long since departed from the luxury of debate and is well into the time for immediate action.


Blaming governments and oil companies for climate change is like suing a tobacco company after smoking for 20yrs because you have cancer or making the breweries liable for your alcoholism.

 

[BirderoftheNorth]

Yes, birders most definitely should be conservationists.

After all, if we don't do anything about habitat destruction, etc., then certain species will become extinct, which wouldn't be good.

Something to take into consideration when chasing a rarity should be how much gas it burns. Does seeing the rare bird benefit anything other than yourself/your list? I know, I chase myself, but it's something to think about.

 

[Charles Letterman]

Oh, I really think we choose what we listen to. Whether it's David Attenborough, Al Gore, George Monbiot or the many others like them, we have authoritative voices out there explaining all of these things. Some people just turn over to watch Top Gear instead, and there is something willful that disregard for the truth.
Given this the responsibility of changing opinion falls on the rest of us, and that's why we have to 'preach', or lobby to tax the bejesus out of those people keeping their fingers in their ears.

I take your point James, but in my opinion the dangers need to be sold and marketed like a product – features and benefits.

And to preach to those that ‘have their fingers in their ears’ is like talking louder in English to a non-English speaking Frenchman who doesn’t understand our language to try and make them comprehend what we're saying.

 

[steve west]

Yes, birders most definitely should be conservationists.

After all, if we don't do anything about habitat destruction, etc., then certain species will become extinct, which wouldn't be good.

SImply put, but to the point. I believe that if we call ourselves birders then we are among the greatest fans of biodiversity. Nature is our club. Some club members watch the matches from their armchairs, fine, others get involved as volunteers, etc. What I would question would be club members going to the matches to support the other side.

 

[Charles Letterman]

What I would question would be club members going to the matches to support the other side.

You can question away, but I reserve the right to follow my convictions, even if they go against those expected by others of a birder.

I suppose to answer your original question we still need a detailed definition of 'conservationist'. Is it caring about the environment? Taking positive action? If so, how much positive action? Sitting in front of earthmovers or taking your own shopping bag to Tescos?

 

[Osprey_watcher]

I often sit here wondering whether it's worth continuing with this kind of thread once it gets into the realm of the personal. My arguments are conceptual, backed by personal beliefs if you like, but not directed at any particular person. But that's always the danger, isn't it? You open up a debate and the ones who don't understand even the basics of democratic debate start jeering and mud-slinging.

Yes very good example of debate that!!​

Awareness of global warming has existed in some circles for more than 20 years. It's only though in the last few years that those circles have been granted access to a wider audience, in the face of overriding evidence from around the world. At least 20 years have been lost, with the world paralysed by the lack of resolve caused by the actions and so-called opinions of the self-interested.​

Getting personal now: people like yourselves should not be allowed to waste more of society's valuable time and efforts. Global warming is a fact and anybody with two eyes in their head and at least an equivalent number of brain cells can see it. Move over and let the world try and solve the problem.​

I never said it didn't exist. I commented on the fact that 'climate change' had been replaced by 'global warming'. Two different things in my opinion. But what is my opinion worth? After all I must have less than 2 brain cells.​

BY the way Mr Osprey W I would check your sources, if you have any - there are at least 3 reasons why I am not God:​

1) The Omnipotent doesn't "vote" or "suggest" or even ask for another opinion​

2) If I were God I would have given myself more hair​

3) I did actually apply for the post but I was told that Exxon already had a company chairman.​

Steve​

http://www.birdinginspain.com​

And finally, if you've been turned down for the job what's the point in continuing to practise?​

I think you're doing a pretty good impersonation actually. Perhaps you should apply again. Then you could solve the climate problem and we wouldn't have to worry.​

Anyway off to the Garden Centre now to get some bird food. And I'll be going in my big car.​

 

[birdboybowley]

So what caused the end of the last Ice Age then? Was that climate change? Or the one before that...?

 

[Osprey_watcher]

So what caused the end of the last Ice Age then? Was that climate change? Or the one before that...?

Climate change.
Point I was trying to make is that I tend to associate the phrase 'Global warming' with man made destruction of the ozone layer and things like that.
Whereas 'Climate change' is a naturally occuring event. Not that I'm saying that humans aren't helping to accelerate it. So perhaps not as natural as it once was.

And if the people who are demanding that we change the way we live to help slow it down are so concerned, then why are they using up power by switching on their computers?

​

 

[James_Owen]

And if the people who are demanding that we change the way we live to help slow it down are so concerned, then why are they using up power by switching on their computers?

Green living is more about rational, reasonable steps than returning to the Stone Age. I'm sure you would agree that half an hour a day pootling on the internet is one thing, and a 6-month cruise around the Med quite another.

My point is, ignoring what conservationists have to say on the basis that they too use the planet's resources is an utterly facile position to take. Short of committing hara-kiri in the name of the rainforest, what are we supposed to do to satisfy people who take that view and use it as an excuse to change nothing?

 

[gyrfalcon]

You spend half an hour every day for your entire life burning electricity on a pc.. a little old lady who never used a PC in her life goes on a cruise.
Getting a bit tired of "Conservationists" spelling out the benchmark for responsible living based on their own activities, and damning everyone else who doesn't live in an identical fashion.

 

[Charles Letterman]

You spend half an hour every day for your entire life burning electricity on a pc.. a little old lady who never used a PC in her life goes on a cruise.
Getting a bit tired of "Conservationists" spelling out the benchmark for responsible living based on their own activities, and damning everyone else who doesn't live in an identical fashion.

Exactly.

And I ask again, what's the definition of 'conservationist'? Those on this thread who claim to be one, should have the answer at their fingertips.

 

[James_Owen]

You spend half an hour every day for your entire life burning electricity on a pc.. a little old lady who never used a PC in her life goes on a cruise.
Getting a bit tired of "Conservationists" spelling out the benchmark for responsible living based on their own activities, and damning everyone else who doesn't live in an identical fashion.

Wasn't damning at all, just stating the obvious - small scale private use of a PC nearly isn't as polluting to the atmosphere as, oh I don't know, flying on a foreign holiday twice a year, driving 300 miles every weekend for rarities, or voting Tory, it doesn't come close. So there isn't any necessary hypocrisy required to point this out on an internet forum.
Whatever else there is to say, that much is true.

Now, I have to ask, short of water-boarding, what would convince the skeptics and Jeremy Clarkson's of this world to change their attitudes and lifestyles?

 

[steve west]

Exactly.

And I ask again, what's the definition of 'conservationist'? Those on this thread who claim to be one, should have the answer at their fingertips.

That would take rather too long to explain to someone who hasn't understood anything about global warming in the last 20 years. I give you a definition and I'm preaching. I try to start off from mutually accepted factand you say there is none. Is it a debate you are after, or a lynching? If the latter is the case I repeat stop wasting the rest of the world's time.