Global warming discussion - All opinions welcome
So obviously, I believe global warming is the greatest threat to mankind. As the summer hits, and especially for the last few years, I feel more and more uncomfortable going outside. I think most people would agree, i think it's undeniable.
However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. To the others who may react to my proposal with disdain, I hope you can understand the importance of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes things you don't like to hear. Trust me, as much as it drags me down that people to this day still do not believe in global warming, I feel the best way to reach them is to allow them to share their thoughts, and get to the root of the problem by engaging in personal discussions with them.
SO please, people on both sides, feel free to comment and share your thoughts. Please be respectful.
However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. To the others who may react to my proposal with disdain, I hope you can understand the importance of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes things you don't like to hear. Trust me, as much as it drags me down that people to this day still do not believe in global warming, I feel the best way to reach them is to allow them to share their thoughts, and get to the root of the problem by engaging in personal discussions with them.
SO please, people on both sides, feel free to comment and share your thoughts. Please be respectful.
Comments (179)
This isn't the time to ask silly questions like these, your house (earth) is on fire you idiot!
My opinion is that we are rapidly closing in on the point of no return, and given that peaceful attempts to resolve global warming have all but failed, violence will likely be the only option going forth.
Quoting SackofPotatoeJam
Denying global warming should be treated with complete and unconditional disdain. Freedom of speech does not preclude the public shaming and ostracizing of those who abuse it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722883
Nice.
An active topic of debate is whether we have closed in on the point of no return or whether we have a few more weeks to screw around. I suspect that if we have not closed in on our doomsday yet, we are probably too close to back away. I find no satisfaction in that, please note.
Why is that man snickering?
Stifled laughter?
Polite interesting discussions with people I disagree with is exactly why I joined the forum. I love how you've tried to create a space for productive conversations.
I don't think that global warming/climate change is the greatest threat to mankind. In my opinion, even if I assumed that the most dire scientific projections about the future were true, there are still more serious crises that are hurting and killing more people than climate change. Millions of people die from very preventable causes every year, and hundreds of millions suffer from poverty and malnutrition etc. We should spend our energy and money efficiently, saving as many people and doing as much good as possible.
I am hopeful that innovation will give us more power over the environment, and allow us to get the things we want (like energy) safely and efficiently. Innovation will happen even faster if some of the millions of children we can save grow up to become engineers and scientists.
I quite like the ideas in Bjorn Lomborg's book False Alarm
A pattern of public hysteria has been normalised as the fitting response to an increasing number of topics - not just climate change: Race, Gender, Trump, Ukraine, Russia, China, COVID.... Any challenge to the prevailing authoritative narrative may not only be censored, but the author is often reflexively condemned to a virtual public lynching. Discourse itself has become precarious; jobs are lost, friendships severed.
This cultural pattern of behaviour is not symptomatic of a rational or scientific age - rather, it possesses a striking resonance with a medieval mind that adheres staunchly to fixed truths, doctrines, and a good v evil dichotomy.
This is exhausting, in practice fatally unproductive, emotionally infantile and suspiciously disingenuous.
Absent the active suspension of judgement no rational enquiry concerning any complex subject is possible.
It cannot be said often enough, the singular characteristic consistent with every cultural pathology is censorship. The insane manifestations of Stalin, Hitler, Christendom may have been driven by distinctly different ideologies but where they are alike is all three strictly censored and punished criticism.
The absence of dialogue is indistinguishable from the absence of thought.
On a complex matter, such as global warming, it is by definition insufficient to simply affirm evidence that aligns with your own pre-disposition - particularly when the subject is emotive. Rather, we should first genuinely and actively seek evidence to convince ourselves that the obverse is true. Only, then, can we hope to acquire a sufficient understanding that may lead to practical solutions.
Well said.
If one is free to say "global warming is a hoax", then I'm equally free to say " this person is a moron and we ought not entertain their views"
Too often 'free speech' is confused with a right to be taken seriously. The right to be taken seriously is earnt, it's not a birthright.
I think mankind will be just fine, with or without global warming. It's perhaps the current status quo that will have to go - something for which I won't shed a single tear.
Personally, I am much more worried about pollution.
Further, it seems to me the climate debate has become increasingly politicized and securitized; two things that generally achieve the opposite of solving a problem. In a discussion so rife with ulterior motives I find it hard to trust anything that's being said.
For example, where I live the government has started to disown farmers on a large-scale, supposedly to reduce emmissions. However, it's a poorly-kept secret that the ruling political elite have long wanted to cut down the agriculture sector. So 'climate' has simply become a stick to beat farmers with.
This type of corruption fuels my skepticism.
Quoting SackofPotatoeJam
I'm not sure where you live. I live in a temperate climate and people complain about the same thing. At the same time, we've had heat waves to upwards of 38 degrees Celcius as long as I can remember. Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that we're so pampered with luxuries like airconditioning and temperate-regulated homes, that we're diminishing our bodies' natural ability to regulate temperature. That also happens as a natural result of getting older, and people are on average getting older.
All of this isn't to say the climate isn't changing. The climate has always been changing. I'm skeptical about the alarmism.
You can legitimately opine that you find this opinion moronic - but if your response is to attack the speaker - "this person is a moron" - you have changed the subject from global warming to the person saying it - this is the death of discourse.
The person being told they are a moron has nowhere to go - even if they were to suddenly flip their view - they would only confirm the moronic title. This form of ad hominem is all too common and all too unproductive.
The smart money seems to be on nuclear, and biological catastrophe as well as climate apocalypse. Personally I predict that as soon as the smart people descend into their bunkers, the rest of us will be able to sort things out together.
Climate change would be our greatest threat if we keep emitting greenhouse gasses at the same pace or even at a reduced pace. I don't think we will, not necessarily because we will reduce emissions voluntarily, but because of collapse or reduction of industrialization.
Basically the idea is that economic growth (that is linked almost 1 to 1 with energy-consumption) as we had for a couple of centuries now, is not the norm nor 'business as usual', but mostly something that was and is only possible because of burning of cheap fossil fuels. They are reliable, energy-dense, easy to use... and most importantly they also have been cheap. As they are limited and easily available stocks run out however, they will get progressively more expensive. As economic growth relies on cheap energy, it will halt and this will eventually also crash our economy because it is essentially set up around the idea of perpetual growth. Presumably all of this will stress relations in and between countries even further, probably leading to a lot of conflict and wars.
So in short my guess is that we will keep emitting for a while until we can't anymore at the cost we need, which will crash industrial globalized civilization or peg it down a serious notch... which will presumably reduce emissions even further. This will probably still amount to 2 to 3 C° rise in global temperature, which is really bad to be clear, but not that bad relative to the other problems we will be dealing with.
This is a pretty common idea, but what is exactly the logic behind it?
What is the exact mechanism that requires modern economies to grow in order to be considered healthy?
Perpetual growth seems more like a demand of governments that need to compete with their peers (think for example the US-China rivalry; to stand still is to lag behind), compensation for extremely irresponsible fiscal policy and monetary policy and to keep afloat a system of social security that is not economically feasible in the long run.
Just some questions / thoughts your comment raised in me.
I'm no economist, but from what i've gathered one of the reasons is that we need growth to offset all the debt we accumulate.
Debt is essentially a claim on the future. Take a house loan for example, you already have the house and can live in it, but haven't yet paid for the labor, materials, value of the ground etc etc... You need money to pay it off, and you need to produce goods or services to accumulate that money. So essentially debt means you have to do work in the future to pay back something you get right away.
Taken as a whole, a lot of debt is accumulated in our economies, more and more actually, which means we will have to produce a lot of stuff in the future to pay that back. If the economy shrinks, we would have trouble making good on all those claims on the future because we produce less (that is what shrinking means in economic terms)... and presumably that would break the system.
Maybe this is a bit simplistic, but it does sound plausible to me.
Yes.
Quoting yebiga
Why?
Quoting yebiga
They could educate themselves, do their due diligence with regards to sources, do the work required to join the discussion in question.
Quoting yebiga
That's an empirical claim. Is it unproductive? Do you have some reason to think so?
I think it's equally likely that failure to exclude poorly researched positions from the debate ends up swamping it with nonsense, occupies everyone's time pointing out the most basic errors and so does more to stifle debate that exclusory behaviour would.
I think this is one of the main concerns for many. Alarmism is creeping into many discourses, actually.
Public discourse often is held hostage by loonies. Not that people listen to them, they don't (as they obviously are loonies), but by them being picked up by the opposing side. The loonies are the people who are pointed out and said to represent "the other side" in the debate. As if there would be these masses of "climate change deniers" (or climate deniers) or those that want to use "Climate change" as this vessel for radical socialist agenda. Yeah right.
But if you can find an example of them in the social media, there has to be huge swarms of them! :roll:
At this point, I am highly skeptical about anyone who pretends not to be alarmed by climate change. These 'non-alarmed' folks are just trying to ignore the problem, to reassure themselves.
Mind you, it is because they didn't want to sound 'alarmist' that the IPPC has somewhat systematically toned down its language and scenarios for decades. And now it appears that the problem is worse and growing faster than they said it would. So all this drama about 'alarmism', all these snowflakes afraid of their own fear, contributed to our doom.
I don't think so. At least me I think that climate change is a real problem for us and it has been happening already for a long time. And will be to us and the next generation after us. But the World will not end. That's the point.
The world will not end, but our world of permanent growth will end. That's the point. The belief in progress, in the indefinite growth of science and the economy, will end. Total population will shrink. Total economic output will shrink. It may well be that science will shrink as well.
Oh, but that's call change. Like in climate change.
And I'm not so sure climate change will kill you and all of your family. Or mine.
Sharing a wrong opinion is an abuse of free speech?
If anything, abusive speech is an abuse of free speech.
Quoting Olivier5
Is that a rhetorical question?
Or then the statistics of natural disasters:
Those tell a different story, not of climate change or it's impact, but simply that our society can handle problems such as climate change better now than hundred years ago. And this isn't denialism, I'm not denying that climate change is a serious problem, only that it's not a existential problem for human kind. The year 2100 or 2200 there will very likely be humans around. That's the alarmism I'm talking about.
So, do you think you and your family will die directly or indirectly because of climate change?
Those numbers are a bit disingenuous SSU. It's not now that matters most or the positive trend up till now (as if that trend is automatically going to continue/is empirically proven!).... It's the future impacts of climate change that are the real problem. We only have had what, 1.1 or so increase in temperature as of now? The problems are already being felt now, but the real problems only start with 1.5°, 2° C increase in 10 or 20 years, and then it could get really tough by the end of the century if we get to 3° or more... for centuries to come.
Not being an existential problem is a very low bar. I know there's people focusing especially on existential risk, for humans to survive as a species, but frankly I couldn't care less about "the species" if the world is turned into an arid hothouse where most of the other species have died off and only small portions of the globe are really livable without technological assistance. Seriously, I don't get this type of reasoning, it's like saying to someone you will lose most of your limbs, your eyes, your stomach etc, but don't be alarmed we can keep you alive just fine by hooking you up to this machine for the rest of your life.
There will be humans around in 2200, I agree. The question is: How many? Already scores of youth are opting for not having kids because of CC.
BAU is not going to help anyone. We need to be alarmed.
Quoting ssu
Nothing impossible there. It happens to many folks already.
Yes, it is. A less rhetorical question would be: cui bono from climate change denial?
And that's alarmism. Call something existential when it's really existential, then you don't fall into alarmism: of making unwarranted claims. The Sun poses an existential threat to life on Earth as current theory on the sun's stages in the future holds, but that is in the billion year time scale. This isn't just a rhetorical question, it really drives the discussion. Because pointing this out, I am categorized as being non-alarmed about climate change, as simply giving a "meh" about it. When doubting the most severe predictions is labeled as being a denier of the whole problem, that is a real problem for honest discussion. We have to avoid the lures of tribalism and making making issues to be like religious movements with their proper liturgy and other views considered blasphemy.
I had this same issue come out on the Xi Jinping and the CCP has no clothes thread where, yes, China is facing real difficulties and no, China isn't going to collapse. Again the love affair we have with "end-is-nigh" thinking.
Or it's similar when talking about the financial system. I believe that sooner or later our international monetary system will have a huge crisis and something new will replace this present system. Yes, it's also a big issue, even if climate change is a fa larger issue. But that collapse doesn't mean a societal collapse. The last time when the monetary system collapsed, many didn't even notice what had happened.
Quoting Olivier5
With more prosperity, people have less kids. That's what historically has happened. This is a trend that didn't start yesterday. And just look Japan: their stock market hasn't ever reached the highs in the late 1980's, they have a lot more old people than young people and are they on a verge of collapse? I don't think so.
The real problems are in the places that are already in dire straits before the largest impact of climate change.
Not the globalists, which are the bigger threat.
No doubt the poor will suffer sooner than the rich. But climate change is evidently happening faster than we can adapt, and it's probably not going to stop before a few thousand years, so ultimately, every single nation will suffer gravely. And mind you, the poles are warming twice faster than the rest.
Some change is in store, yes.
Not sure who you call the globalists. It seems to me that naïve, enthusiastic globalisation was killed by COVID.
We can always just hope for the Yellowstone supervolcano to erupt. Then we'll have those nice cold winters and beautiful sunsets for a long time.
Yeah, I know. It isn't a solution. Most recent volcanic activity was 70 000 years ago and major eruption some 700 000 years ago.
I actually made more or less the same point a while back in a discussion with Xtrix in the climate change thread, so I do sort of agree, existential threat is a technical term with a specific meaning and therefor shouldn't be used to describe the threat:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11305/climate-change-general-discussion/p6
But my point this time was that it doesn't really matter that it isn't an existential threat, it is still or should be very alarming nevertheless.
Quoting ssu
Peter Zeihan seems a bit too much of a demographic determinist and he also constantly over-dramatizes things, probably because it increases his value as a geo-political pundit in times where extreme positions are rewarded by algorithms... So I would take everything he says with a grain of salt, but I do agree to some extend that China has an enormous challenges purely based on demographics and water/food security. You cannot really replace all those aging people, and if climate change causes more droughts and famines it could go fast... every regime-collapse in China's history has been about food at base.
Quoting ssu
But we did avoid a far bigger crash back then, right? And even if avoided, it still caused a lot of issues for a lot of people.
Quoting ssu Sure this is definitely a thing, and we should try to avoid it... but at the same time we shouldn't disregard serious issues either because some people are prone to doom.
:100:
How precisely does a person earn the right to be taken seriously?
I have to do more research on it.
On another note, the UN's Sustainability Development Agenda I assume includes handling human generated global warming. But I worry their smart cities will be hell cities. And did we the people get a say in whether or not we want to be part of this agenda?
Actually, yes. There was a massive crowd sourcing of people's concerns prior to defining the sustainable development agenda. See for instance:
https://www.kff.org/news-summary/u-n-releases-results-from-myworld2015-survey/
I don't see where they asked if the people are ok with the agenda. Rather, they just surveyed which goals in the agenda the people are most concerned about. This is implied consent.
I get a sense they plan to radically alter life as we know it. After all, that's the only way to tackle global warming, or at least that is what they want us to believe.
See, "The Great Reset initiative"
And 8 predictions by WEF https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153920524981479 , includes "You'll own nothing and be happy"
Again I ask, who benefits from global warming alarmism. The answer is the UN and the WEF
Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Cognitive dissonance is so high, that even while the Agenda is plainly stated publically, most people will still deny there is a collusion of power with the intention of changing the world without our explicit consent.
Yes indeed. :100:
Quoting Olivier5
Very alarmed.
As I said in my earlier response to you...
Quoting Isaac
It's not.
I don't know. There is so much information, its hard to make heads or tails of things. How are any of us supposed to stop global warming, if even the UN (with who knows how much money, connections, and media access) can't get anything done?
Am I a defeatist to think trying to stop global warming, at least as average working class folk, is a pipe dream?
I feel like you guys that want to do something are just reacting emotionally. "Global warming!!"
Offer a feasible plan. Not just "Cut back on this or that". A plan that involves actually getting big corporations to comply. Something that has worked in history where average folk made difference like Ghandi's non-violent resistance.
It doesn't look like our generation has the ability to work together. Future generations might, though.
This year, we had a drought like we haven't had in decades. At a time well into the drought, I was talking to two ladies with whom I otherwise chit chat about the weather, gardening, and such. Of course we all complained about the drought. Both of them said, on two separate occasions, "Well, it's not like there's anything we can do about it." It struck me that on the same day, in two conversations with two people, I got the same reply.
Now to think how your attitude that you outline above would fare in such real world situations. Both of them are middle class ladies in their fifties. You think calling them morons would somehow be helpful?
I actually doubt that there exist studies on this particular topic. But if I remember correctly, there are those studies where people were being insulted prior to taking an IQ test and the people did worse on those tests. This certainly speaks against your attitude.
Another anecdotal example: I know people who have been gardening for more than fifty years and who don't know that certain fruits and vegetables require pollinators, like bees and butterflies, or else they don't produce fruit. I know a lady, an avid gardener her whole life, who bought a new plastic greenhouse, planted tomatoes in it, and then kept it closed. When there were no tomatoes, she blamed the plants and the nursery where she bought them. Knowing her, she wouldn't take information from someone younger than herself. I know many people who are like that. It's not necessarily that they are closed off to new information, it's that they are closed off to it when it comes from sources they don't already respect.
The supremacist attitude that some environmental activists have certainly isn't getting through to such people, and if anything, it's only making them dig their heels in even more.
And it goes both ways. The environmental activists need to earn their right to be taken seriously as well.
This is why a course of action that aims to be successful cannot afford to depend on information, it cannot afford to depend on taking someone's word for gold. It cannot afford to depend on trust.
It has to depend on what people know for themselves, what they can experience themselves. Everything else is too abstract to generate motivation to act constructively.
I think there should be kibbutz like mandatory education camps where every person would need to live for at least two consecutive years, producing all of their food by themselves, with manual work. I think the biggest problem nowadays is that most people are so far remote from food production that they fail to recognize it for the vital activity that it is and so don't appreciate it. Because of that, they act irresponsibly in regard to food and food production. And they won't change their ways simply by listening to a lecture or reading a book. They need to do it, they need to put in all the work that is necessary in order to grow food.
Well, you could stop spreading disinformation.
He hasn't.
I agree.
Just as in the Zeihan example, over dramatization still is not great when you are dealing with facts. It's far too easy to ask the question: Is China really to collapse now, immediately, and get the answer "Likely not". The same happens if we take the most dire forecast in the shortest time period. When that most dire forecast doesn't happen (in the few months or one year) it's supposed to happen, you can seriously question then the forecaster.
To think that the most dire forecast is just a way to "wake up" people and hence it's OK to be alarmist, then one should remember that to get most closest to what happens will be the best forecast.
I asked for a feasible plan to stop global warming. Of course I will spread better information if I have it.
Ok, maybe I agree that this kind of alarmism as a political strategy isn't all that helpful, in that it potentially alienates those that weren't already convinced even further. But I'm not sure really, maybe it did help to some extend, climate change certainly is high on the agenda now.
But I wasn't talking about political strategy. Aside from any political impact one may want to have, I just think the truth is that the problem is very very serious, and one is entirely justified in being alarmed, as a normal human reaction to something like this.
Like, we are leaving behind the only climate in history wherein human civilisation have developed and existed thus far, probably permanently for all our intents and purposes... that is quite something. Climate change at the very least will be a risk or stress multiplier on all or most of our vital system, energy, food, water, shelter... for centuries to come. And then we are one of the most adaptable species with our technology, a lot of the rest of the biosphere will have less of a chance to adapt to this unprecedent rate of change.
All of this is pretty bleak and depressing I think, and the mental tax from this on young and future generations is by itself already a tragedy it seems to me.
Feasible in what sense? If every nation converts to nuclear power and we start building large scale scrubbers, we could at least reverse some of the changes we've already contributed.
Is that feasible for our generation? No.
Nuclear (maybe some renewables) and electrification of everything, is what is needed, as well as a fundamental rethinking of agriculture. Forget scrubbers, concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the air are to small to make it worth it to actively pull them out.
It's not feasible in normal times, no, because of the sheer scale of it. Maybe it would be possible in something akin to a transitioning to a wartime economy, like the US or Germany in WWII. That may seem unlikely right now, but we don't know what will happen in volatile times... look at the war and energy crisis in Europe right now. Nobody could have predicted that a few years ago.
Times are definitely a changing.
I think nuclear is the higher priority, though. Electricity is mostly generated by coal or gas.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Really? Is there research on that? Just curious.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes, but it doesn't seem to be in the direction of global cooperation. And democratic governments are generally screwed. Apathy takes over.
Nuclear is electricity-production, that would have to replace all other current electricity-production (which is 20% all total energy-use) and also everything else that uses fossil fuels directly as energy, like transport or factory-ovens (which is the other 80%). That latter 80% needs to be electrified first, before we can use electricity as the energy-source, like we are doing now with the electric car.
Quoting Tate
I'm just relying on experts here that seem reliable to me. We have scrubbers already as prototypes, but they seem woefully inefficient energy-wise, and therefor hardly scalable... which makes sense if you consider that greenhouses gasses, while high enough to raise temperature, are still very small concentrations in the air.
Quoting Tate
I think it could go any way still. Apathy, or even open conflict because of higher stressed relations and scarcity, are all definite possibilities... but so is cooperation, for instance if the need is truly high. In WWII the US and the USSR commies were besties and fighting side by side to defeat the fascists... go figure.
Yes, I know. I just meant that switching to electric cars won't limit CO2 emissions until we have a replacement for coal and gas power plants.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Forests scrub the atmosphere every summer. I think we can come up with something. Or at least it's too early to give up.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
You're saying a global catastrophe could be the solution to global conflict. Could be.
:100:
Humans seem to have long forgotten that the other species are 'our own' as well and that our survival/quality of life heavily depends on their survival/quality of life.
Ok, yes sure... but we need both rather soon.
Quoting Tate
Scientific consensus seem to be that it's really hard to get greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, and that it's also hard to see inventions or innovations that would do it. Forests can help a bit, sure, but from what I gathered it's not that big of a percentage.
Quoting Tate
Yeah something like that, I guess. We'll see what Europe ultimately does in reaction to the energy-crisis, but it certainly has changed a lot of minds in a short time. For instance, a lot of countries were set on phasing out nuclear for years now, and now they are all reconsidering. A crisis certainly seems to create political will like nothing else does.
Check out this article. It's a review of several potential approaches.
I really find this hard to believe.
Quoting Olivier5
The signed treaties have made some progress. The Montreal Protocol have almost eliminated CFCs and the Paris agreement for net-zero emissions.
There is a rather foundational philosophical tradition, where I begin a discussion on a complex subject by assuming I'm the idiot.
Wrong models won't just alienate those that aren't already convinced, they simply can contribute to wrong policies. It's not just pep talk. If a forecast is ulitmately proven wrong, we cannot excuse it because "it supported the good cause". Something "for the cause" isn't the way to make models about the future, especially the ones that you base your actual policies on. The issues are complex, not so simple to be good or evil as people want them to be. And furthermore, to criticize models about their validity when they are wrong isn't some "climate denier" scheme, it's basic way to do science. And strawmanning this, like responding "oh, so you are denying climate change?", doesn't help. The models really need to be accurate, realistic and not simple extrapolations from linear models, where the end result is that you are forecasting the year when the human race, or all species, are extinct.
Just take the extremely stupid Chinese "one child" policy, a real product of the fears of the overpopulation debate in the 1970's implemented in 1980. Or similar policies in Singapore: that there simply will be too many SIngaporeans / Chinese and hence drastic measures were taken to limit population growth. All because of the threat of overpopulation, which ought to have resulted in widespread famines twenty years ago. And now both policies have backfired and they face a bigger problem now (Singapore is desperately trying that Singaporeans would have more children). India utterly failed in any kind of population growth limitations and guess what: it's fertility rates have gone down. The simple fact that prosperity alters the need for people to have children was shown again to be true, but I'm not sure how anyone saying this would have succeeded in any of the overpopulation debates in the 1970's. The Malthusians would evidently have won the day as they did. And likely will win a public debate, because that's what people want to hear.
This probably isn't biological but more of a sociological phenomenon. The age of puberty for girls is falling according to reports and they've chalked it up to improved nutrition. The takeaway - a much longer period during which females are fertile (do the math).
Yet, fertility rates are paradoxically going down, more in some countries than others. The explanation - women have other/bigger fish to fry i.e. starting a family has been deprioritized.
Even so, we can't really rule out a genetic cause for the change in our behavior - it could be hardcoded for all we know.
It's not about 'getting through' to people. People rarely modify their behaviour based on rational argument. If they're going to dig their heels in, then something already exists which makes them feel more comfortable with their current beliefs and all the while that exists no amount of rational argument is going to persuade them otherwise. Rational argument just isn't the iron fist people seem to think it is, it presents options is all, if people don't want to take the option you offer, they won't.
The point about excluding people from discussion who haven't done their due diligence, who haven't earned the right to be taken seriously, is not about magically persuading them of your opinion by such action, it's about allocating your limited reserves of bandwidth to more productive activities than pretending to have a rational argument with people who don't even share your criteria for argumentative power. It's like trying to play chess against someone who disagrees with you about what the rules of chess are.
Insults serve a purpose in social relations, they didn't develop for no reason. They're about ostracising people. Making it clear that people do not meet the criteria for membership of you group. If people are upset about being ostracised thus, then they need to question why they wanted to be a member of that group in the first place.
In my experience, most people who are annoyed about being ostracised from more serious, academic, style discussion want to be a member of that group, want to be allowed into that debate, for the very reasons they are being ostracised (it has a certain kudos because the people involved have done a lot of due diligence), they just ant to shortcut the hard work and be allowed in anyway. There's nothing noble about laziness.
Quoting baker
Absolutely. I have very little truck with the modern environmental campaign groups either. It's little more than a social event, with a greater concern for their Facebook profile than for the issue over which they're chanting their vacuous platitudes.
I don't think anybody seriously invested in the topic is really claiming definitively that we are going to go extinct, they're just using 'existential threat' as concept that isn't technical but rather figuratively and political, to indicate that it's going to be really really bad if we don't do anything. I think it means something like an existential treat to our current way of life, loosely... and not to the species.
Wrong models could inform bad policies, but we aren't really talking about the models here I don't think. The climate models themselves are, in all their uncertainty, actually pretty clear. If we emit x amount of greenhouse gasses we can expect between y and z amount of global warming. We are talking about what the effects on human civilizations would be, and as far as I know there are no models for that because it's just to complex to model. Nobody can really predict these kind of things beforehand with any kind of certainty.
To demand accurate, realistic non-linear models before we can make any sort of claim about this is effectively the same as saying we should just remain silent about it, which can't be a good idea either because then we would have no impetus at all for said policies. So saying it is an existential treat to our way of life and building policies on that, doesn't seem to far off base, even if it is unsure.
I can't read the whole article, only the abstract, but it does seem to be going for more or less the same conclusion as I have been earlier, namely that it works but isn't efficient/is to costly, which makes it doubtful that it could be scaled up.
"Besides several advantages, NETs present high operational cost and its scale-up should be tested to know the real effect on climate change mitigation. With current knowledge, no single process should be seen as a solution."
The next best thing we can do is try and adapt to climate change.
I am all for it, and lament the lack of US support for the Kyoto protocol. But my interlocutors were expressing concerns that the UN will replace national governments and force a global no-carb revolution. I don't think that's in the cards.
Sorry about that. The body and conclusions aren't pessimistic. They admit it's going to be a challenge and conclude that multiple technologies are a better than a single solution.
No problem.
I have nothing against such potential solutions in principle, but I am a bit skeptical yes. Usually they can work fine as prototypes in a lab - which is the context wherein they are studied - but ultimately they often fail as real world scaled up solutions because of the energy or other costs.
This is by no means restricted to greenhouse capture innovations, but applies to innovations in general. Scientists do have some incentive to shed a positive light on their research projects, because that is more likely to secure future funding... and they typically don't have all that much specific knowledge of what it takes to successfully place something in the market.
And so very little of these lab-innovations actually end up being a success. Also energy presumably will be even more expensive if we need to phase out fossil fuels, so operational costs being high doesn't bode all that well going forward.
Sure. I'm just more optimistic. I guess because we do have a tendency to be mind-blowing when we want to be. :grin:
-- Samuel Clemens
Prosperity and wealth is a sociological phenomenon, so yes, it hasn't got anything to do with biology.
There are solutions to climate change. Many of them are under way. Those who believe it’s hopeless are entitled to think so — they may be right. But we can’t act on that basis.
[quote=Noam Chomsky]We should recognize that if global warming is an automatic consequence of capitalism, we might as well say goodbye to each other. I would like to overcome capitalism, but it’s not in the relevant time scale. Global warming basically has to be taken care of within the framework of existing institutions, modifying them as necessary. That’s the problem we face.
When we turn to human nature, the first thing to remember is that we know essentially nothing about it. It’s what I work on all the time. There’s a few small areas where there’s some understanding of cognitive human nature and very little about the rest. It’s all surmise.
If it is true that human nature is incapable of dealing with problems developing over a longer term, if that’s a fact about the way humans are structured and organized, we can, again, say goodbye to one another. So let’s assume it’s not the case.
Then we work within a set of parameters. The fundamental institutions are not going to change in time. Human nature allows the possibility of thinking about what’s going to happen in a couple of decades, even centuries. Assume all that.
Then we turn to solutions. And there are solutions within that set of assumptions. So let’s proceed and work on them. If those assumptions happen to be wrong, tough for the human species. It’s what we have.
[/quote]
I think that sums it up better than I can.
One need not hope in order to undertake, nor succeed in order to persevere.
-- William I, Prince of Orange
Even if avoiding global warming is now impossible, realistically speaking, mitigating its worst aspects remains a useful task, and so is trying to slow down the phenomenon development so as to give us time to adapt.
Oh I agree. But the problem is when the discourse stays on that level when making actual decisions. Politicians just love grandstanding and hence the problem is that rhetoric and actual decisions can part to totally different realms. When an administration that likely has few years to go until the next election makes an "ambitious" plan for the next twenty years, one can be doubtful of what actually will be done in the next decade or two.
This is a basic problem especially in energy policy, which is quite central to the actual environment policy. Since at least 40 years the emphasis has been to "transfer to renewables". Well, that's really happening only now and the current energy crisis shows just how much dependent we are on oil and gas.
:up:
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that because the discourse is too extreme, politicians make their plans too ambitious to soothe the public who internalised that extreme discourse... and because those plans are too ambitious, nothing gets done?
I don't know how it went down in various countries, but I don't think too much ambition was the real culprit the last 40 years. I think the problem was simply that it costs a lot of money, the effects would only be felt in a few decades way after election cycles, and ultimately people didn't care that much either. Alarmism and Greta Thunberg only really were a thing the past 5, maybe 10 years.
So yeah, the problem I'd say was mainly apathy because the effects were still so far in the future. That, and yes definitely also the fact that our dependence on fossil fuels is much more difficult to get away from than environmentalist and left parties have been making it out to be. But notice here the issue is not an overestimation of the gravity of the problem (i.e. alarmism), but an underestimation of how tied in with fossil fuels our economy really is and an underestimation of the effort required to build alternative energy-sources... those are two distinct things.
In short, the diagnosis is not the issue, the lack of good workable solutions is.
We can override our biology! Isn't that awesome? Hunger strikes, celibacy (voluntary), etc. Mind-blowing as far as I'm concerned. Hardwired!? Pfft! :smile:
Ironically it is likely those that push for ‘greener’ living, at the expense of everything else, that will magnify the potential damage to human civlization.
Examples of such stupidity are those against GM foods and genetically modified livestock (the knock-on effect is not great) and the idea that ‘nuclear power’ is somehow ‘dangerous’ and wind and solar are viable alternatives. When countries shut down nuclear power stations whilst simultaneously espousing views on climate change regarding carbon emissions … frankly it is baffling and either due to wilful stupidity, ignorance, political self-promotion and/or a combination of these factors with numerous other pieces of nonsense thrown in.
Hysteria and knee-jerk reactions made by governments, and pushed by people who have little to no understanding or training in a broad range of fields and related fields, are the biggest problem humanity face. Note: This extends into free speech and various other areas that have made mass communications such a hotbed over the last few decades.
In short, how we communicate is the biggest problem we face and it has always been the biggest problem for humanity and will remain so as long as we are human.
You can generally see if a problem is a genuine one when the problem encapsulates the multiple potential solutions in various other seemingly unrelated areas.
A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. Those that completely deny any hint of Climate Change and how humans impact the climate are simply ignorant to basic science.
I think we are entering the umpteenth utterance of ‘everyone is going to starve’ or ‘there are too many people,’ yet again these dire warning of human civilisation collapsing have never come about. This is not to say there is not danger, only that in today’s world any such perceived ‘crisis’ is magnified tenfold by the carpet bombing of public minds via various media resources espousing all kinds of unverified nonsense as conclusive evidence. My hope is that the younger generations coming into future political prominence will be wiser to the world of sensationalism, hysteria and advertising to the extent that they can calm the storm enough to think independently.
By global warming, I assume you mean man-made global warming. That is, the idea that humans, with their powered machines and factory farming, are primarily and exclusively responsible for the recorded global warming.
Here are my opinions:
If it were clear that humans had no influence on the climate, the whole discussion would definitely be less emotional and less offensive. One would have no other choice than to accept what is necessary, as one does with one's own death. The climatic changes happening on all planets and in all suns throughout the universe are not man-made, but natural and inevitable.
Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? Of course not. Science can always be wrong, because it can simply overlook many things. That is, there may be much that we have not yet considered regarding climate shifts. We know very little about the mechanisms and interactions between the Earth's spheres, such as the ignorosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc. However, the activities of these spheres are probably determinant for our climate.
If there should have been times in the earth's history when there was a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than today and yet it was much colder, and vice versa, times when there was less CO2, and it was much hotter than today, then there would be a good reason to deny man-made climate change.
Are we really so sure about the climate issue? There are people who advocate a different cosmology than the mainstream one. For them, it is clear that “we must not be deluded into thinking [“reducing air pollution”] will affect climate significantly. The connection between warming and atmospheric pollution is more asserted than demonstrated, while the connection with variations in the Sun has been demonstrated.” https://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-warming-in-a-climate-of-ignorance/
As a true philosopher, one must remain neutral to alternative scientific models. For philosophers have often made fools of themselves in history with alleged empirical facts. The accusation of unserious fringe science is not tenable, since many great recognized scientists were ridiculed as pioneers by their colleagues back then.
The current climate debate tends strongly towards a psychogenic and sociogenic mass phenomenon, keyword alarmism, which I think is dangerous, because you lose your cool head, which you need in case of any possible danger. One should just take an in-depth look at the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the criticism of science, to be more relaxed. I am very skeptical of climate modeling. Human beings imagine that they can model everything. That is hubris. The world is always much, much more complex than we think.
Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley)
https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-global-warming-can-be-good/
A certain Bjorn Lomborg thinks similarly.
Whoever now says that these two are charlatans has obviously given up his objectivity.
A good discussion that the climate thing is not absolutely settled can be found here:
What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (Steven Koonin)
I agree with the following:
“Separating Science and State
Always keen to shock, Feyerabend sometimes described his position as “relativism,” but in fact he explicitly rejected what most people think of when they hear that term—namely the thesis that all views are equally true or false. What he really favored was a pluralism that refused to allow any one tradition, including science, to dominate all others politically in a democratic society. His positive defense of this view was essentially an adaptation of Mill’s On Liberty.
Mill gave four main arguments for the freedom to express one’s opinions, and Feyerabend takes a consistent application of them to entail that science ought to have no greater hegemony over society than the Church does.
First, any opinion that we try to suppress might in fact be true, so that by suppressing it we could be leading ourselves and others into error. Mill pointed out that to assume otherwise is to claim infallibility. Yet no one (other than a pope speaking ex cathedra) even claims to be infallible; certainly liberals and scientists do not. But in that case, they cannot consistently hold that some views ought to be considered beyond the pale and entirely unworthy of our attention.
Second, even erroneous and unpopular positions typically contain at least a grain of truth, while correct and popular positions are never entirely free of error. Hence, if we are to get closer to the truth, we need to allow these competing opinions to battle it out in the public square so that their adherents might learn from each other.
Third, even when some popular opinion is true, its adherents tend to become dogmatic and superficial in their understanding of the arguments in its favor when they have not had seriously to grapple with competing views.
Fourth and finally, a grasp even of the meaning of a correct opinion tends to get lost when challenges to it are never permitted. It becomes a banality that is merely parroted rather than understood.
Mill emphasized that it is not enough merely to hear out unpopular opinions in a grudging and perfunctory way. One must try to interpret them in the most sympathetic and persuasive form possible, if one is to discover what truth there might be in them and what weaknesses might lie in more popular opinions.
Furthermore, Mill stressed, it is not enough for the expression of unpopular opinions not to be legally prohibited. There must be no social sanction against their expression. Indeed, he regarded social pressure as more insidious than governmental control. By means of it, Mill says:
Society…practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
In Feyerabend’s view, when science arrogates to itself privileges like those described above, it violates these Millian principles. Advocates of scientism would suppress views that conflict with prevailing scientific opinion, shouting them down and preventing their expression in the public education system. They thereby implicitly claim an infallibility that in other contexts they would say no one has. They also fail to learn from their critics, turning science into an ideology and its findings into a bag of clichés repeated robotically rather than understood.” https://americanmind.org/salvo/scientism-americas-state-religion/
When someone wanted to counter me that this passage comes from a religious, conservative voice, I say: That doesn't automatically mean that this voice is wrong in this particular respect. One should beware of non- sequitur.
What if climate alarmism is a quasi-religious substitute? Since Nietzsche stated that we have killed God, the danger is great that we want to fill the void with something instead of simply accepting it.
It seems to me that humankind, as a human condition, always needs a vision of the end times in order to be motivated to act. Without a doomsday scenario with the option, hope, to be able to do something about it, humans would probably get very tired of life. So there is a psychological urge to look for reasons for a downfall. And those who seek, also find. But what if it is a mere fiction? Utility does not make truth. That it is a fiction is even more probable within the framework of this thinking. After all, why would a product of an elementary human need or urge coincide with reality. That would be just a big coincidence.
I admit, an imminent demise brings us together, makes us solidary, makes us more human, brings technical progress, makes us more heroic, and so on. Still, the downfall does not have to be true.
Anyone who thinks that we should not take any unnecessary risks and rather bet that the downfall will actually come and that we will actually be able to prevent it is doing nothing other than making a secular form of Pascal's wager. But anyone who is prepared to take this secular bet should inevitably also bet on the religious one. Because what would be the worldly downfall compared to an eternal torture in the hereafter.
The fact that there is still time to prevent the worst from happening, if we only make an effort now, will definitely motivate many. But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? Behind such a date lies only ideology and political propaganda.
No, it isn't. It's an ignorant position. It's a position which ignores the scientific consensus, decades of research, and overwhelming evidence available at a keystroke.
Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return.
Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial.
Understand?
No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything. Quoting Xtrix
That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception.Quoting Xtrix
Some say so.
Your whole response is unphilosophical.
That's not what you said.
Quoting I like sushi
Human activity is the reason we see the rate of change we're seeing. There are people who have studied this their entire lives which will explain it to you -- the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection or access to a library.
Quoting I like sushi
That's also not what you said.
But even this is stuff you'd hear in the WSJ editorial pages or Fox News. Who cares about "nutcases"? We're talking about scientists. The IPCC isn't a group of "nutcases," so what are we arguing against besides a straw man?
Quoting I like sushi
What do you think climate scientists have been studying all these years?
Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Natural catastrophes have always existed. Believe it or not, climate scientists know this too.
How do we know there are many more now? Because we can count. We can measure frequency, duration, and intensity. Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance.
And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances.
Quoting Xtrix
In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. The media portray many things in a distorted way or even simply incorrectly. For example, with regard to forest fires. Steve Koonin looked at the data from climate scientists, and they show that there is no need to panic.
Quoting Xtrix
Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy.
How do you know you're not the ignorant one? What if the Electric Universe people are right?
If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum.
Quoting spirit-salamander
That is a fact. What do you say?
Climate scientists have been studying the climate. Did you think I believed they have been developing hairstyles? Do you think I believe that current climate change is not primarily being caused by human actions? Do you think that I believe humans have had no impact on the climate … point being what you think I think is irrelevant. I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong.
Now my question to you. What have hairdressers been doing for the past century? :D
Again, this ties back into the poor ability of humans to manage information and communicate amongst the noise and hyperbole.
Just to add, water can be boiled multiple times in a single day whereas the changes to the climate are on a slightly more grander scale ;)
And...?
Remember what I said: we can be as certain of this as we are of anything. Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? We don't inject this truism into discussions about gravity or electromagnetism or walking out the door -- so why make it here?
We're as certain about the role of human activity on climate change rate as we are of anything. The evidence is overwhelming and available to all who wish to be educated about the issue. Does this include you or not? Are you interested in learning about it or not?
Quoting spirit-salamander
Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times -- although I'm not surprised that this is the person you've chosen to follow. Ask yourself why you choose this person over the scientific community?
Quoting spirit-salamander
Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with?
How about balancing it out and read what the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, or any reputable climate scientist has written about this?
Quoting spirit-salamander
Lots of things are discussed on this forum.
True, science does have its roots in philosophy. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. What's being discussed is climate science. If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. Why? Because I'm citing scientists and evidence, not my own musings.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I'm really not interested in your sophomoric thoughts about what "true philosophy" is. So far you've cited two widely debunked non-climate scientists and repeated long-refuted claims about climate change. Forgive me if I question your judgment.
Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded it was ambiguous in my view.
Incidentally, I don't think those who disagree are evil, but I do think they're ignorant and wrong. That often gets conflated.
Maybe you are right. But how do you know? The media's scaremongering is not a reliable source either. I'm not necessarily on Lomborg 's side either. It's just that the opposition seems to me to have abandoned objectivity to a large extent. And there are good reasons for my suspicion.
Do you know about the history of science? Or do you know how things work in the background of a science enterprise? Scientists usually argue very fiercely among themselves. Though when it comes to climate, many seem to be tacitly muzzled by social pressure.
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"?
Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed, given the evidence.
Quoting spirit-salamander
There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure.
Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate.
Quoting Xtrix
How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
You seem a little unfair and stroppy in parts because you think you're absolutely sure of what you're saying. And yes, maybe you're right, and these two guys are completely wrong. But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage.
Btw. Even many pioneers in science were once considered misleading, and many scientists who were bogeymen in their time were sometimes later vindicated.
Quoting Xtrix
It is not only about evidence, but also about lack of knowledge. As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient.
Quoting Xtrix
Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. See history of science and philosophy of science (Have you read Paul Feyerabend?). Or are you a proponent of scientism? I don't believe you when you say you could be wrong. I think you are as sure of your cause as a traditional Catholic is sure of the existence of God.
Quoting Xtrix
debunked has become a vacuous, watered-down concept. Do you think astrology has been debunked yet?
Quoting Xtrix
That's the point I was trying to get across in my first post. And I'm not asking you to believe me. After all, it was asked for an opinion in this entry, but for you, one cannot cherish mere opinions in this regard. Would you take action against me as the head of state?
Now you have posted graphs to support your thesis. Let me tell you an anecdote. In Germany, where I come from, there is a popular scientist, Harald Lesch, who 20 years ago did not take the theses about man-made climate change seriously at all. In doing so, he also pulled up scientific graphs like you've done now. His thesis was more or less that of Koonin. (Check out the discussion between Koonin and Michael Shermer. He doesn't strike me as a charlatan.)
The last years, Harald Lesch has changed his opinion completely. He now thinks like you. Unfortunately, the suspicion cannot be suppressed that he talks like that because he is under social pressure.
Quoting Xtrix
At least outwardly. I'm sure if I talked privately with many climate scientists that what they would tell me would not necessarily mirror the public discourse which is pure panic mode.
Quoting Xtrix
This is a mere assertion. I need evidence.
Quoting Xtrix
So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions.
There is no agenda or activism behind my position. I just wanted to express my opinion because OP asked for opinions.
The following is also my position:
Quoting I like sushi
Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.
I think it is the other way around.
Any example?
That said I completely understand that in regard to the history of the Earth ‘outside’ influences could be a bigger influence than previously thought. The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). And again … That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time … and again, that said we can still make some pretty darn good models that have had good predictive accuracy. The weather is VERY hard to predict yet the seasons are VERY easy to predict.
Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. Perhaps ‘humanity’ will cease and we will just become more cyborg-like? Who knows? One thing for sure is we struggle with mass communication; we are mostly mad as a bag of badgers; struggle to manage information and crap at long term planning & prioritising. On the flip side we are often stubborn and highly adaptable.
If we were mostly sane we would basically be superhuman. Sadly perhaps 0.01% of people are ‘sane any any given moment though :D
I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown.
Quoting I like sushi
The greenhouse theory is a neat theory. But I think it simplifies. As I said before, there is a gigantic knowledge void about the processes that take place between and within each sphere in Earth vicinity (Ionosphere, stratosphere, ignorosphere and so on). On the other hand, it is said that these spheres are important to understand the weather and the climate. There arises a paradox from my point of view. e.g. Until the 1990s, weather phenomena such as sprites were not known, and reports of them by pilots were considered fantastical. Now we know that they exist and that they also have an influence on the weather.
Quoting I like sushi
So I totally agree with that.
Quoting I like sushi
Even if the climate alarmists are right, I think it is highly speculative that we can do anything directly about climate change. We can only adapt. And then it also becomes dangerous when the panic is used for political purposes.
The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain.
Quoting spirit-salamander
So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source.
There’s every reason to believe when the evidence is overwhelming — which it is. You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists.
Quoting spirit-salamander
What media coverage are you referring to, exactly? Give any example.
Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?
Quoting spirit-salamander
And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg?
Sorry, but I’ll stick with the people who know what they’re talking about, having studied the issue all their lives.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No. Nor have I said saying remotely like that. You’re simply ignorant about climate science and have been taken in by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg. That’s not a crime.
Please stop making things up.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. Please cite any source that makes this claim.
This is more fabrication.
Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.
I'm not talking about boiling the water. That should have been obvious after all. I think more about e.g. cloud formation as one example.
Quoting Xtrix
Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Quoting Xtrix
This is an expression of your bias.
Quoting Xtrix
But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, it is. Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. This is where my argument lies. What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much.
Quoting Xtrix
No alternative. One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science.
Quoting Xtrix
Good, I only got the vague impression from you that it might be so.
Quoting Xtrix
So the influence from outside can be very large after all? So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view?
Quoting Xtrix
No, it is not cheap skepticism. If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. The alarmism deniers or the man-made climate change deniers I evaluate, I admit, only intuitively. I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right.
Quoting Xtrix
Climategate was also a real thing.
Quoting Xtrix
Now you're getting arrogant and taking cheap shots. I don't deny climate change, I believe all aspects of the universe are subject to flux. But what do the creationists have to do with all this?
By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism.
Apparently you don't take my questions seriously. I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no.
Okay, so we have on the one hand the scientific community, where there's 98% consensus due to years of accumulated evidence and research that overwhelmingly points to human activity (deforestation, burning fossil fuels, etc.), and on the other hand someone who is not a climate scientist who has been shown to use misleading data.
You, who clearly have no real knowledge of the evidence of this matter, have chosen to throw in with the latter. I can only assume for political reasons, as is usually the case. Republicans in the US, for example, are much more likely to be climate deniers -- and that's not an accident. It's because of the media they consume.
Quoting spirit-salamander
The IPCC is "alarmist"?
Regarding Koonin, Scientific American said it best in response to his work:
Again, you're choosing to follow non-climate scientists. This shows your bias, nothing more. You claim neutrality, but you've chosen a side already and it's evident from your sources, which have so far been 100% climate "skeptics."
Quoting spirit-salamander
No, it isn't.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share. I didn't make the claim -- you did. The onus is on you to provide support for that claim. If you can't do that, then I'll take it for what it is and what's quickly becoming a theme for you: fabrication.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Formulate a coherent question and I'll gladly answer. The above makes no sense.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Good -- because no one is doing that, except in your fantasy world of fabrication. What we're doing is following the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening at a rapid pace, accelerated by human activity. Read the post where I lay this out in basic terms; if you have questions, raise it with that. The evidence is straightforward and it doesn't take long to read.
Quoting spirit-salamander
"Closed system"? This is meaningless. No climatologist is claiming, or ever has claimed, that human activity is EXCLUSIVELY the cause of climate change. Ever. That, again, is pure fabrication.
What climate scientists have done, your beliefs notwithstanding, is account for natural factors and natural variation. The rate of change we see is far beyond any natural factor. That includes clouds, volcanoes, the sun, or any of the other claims that have been launched by climate deniers for the last several decades.
Quoting spirit-salamander
It's exactly that.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Yes, I would recommend you read some history of science and philosophy of science. So far you've demonstrated you know about as much of either as you do about climate science -- viz., next to nothing.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Yes, you are wrong. They're not intellectually honest. In fact it's been repeatedly shown that this is the case. Yet you go with them over the science community. Odd.
Quoting spirit-salamander
:roll:
Another denialist talking point.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Just that they say very similar things: "the science is unsettled," "science has been wrong," "how do we know for sure?", "there's no evidence," etc., and try to pretend that there's a rigorous "debate" between "evolutionists" (their word) and creationists. They try to portray themselves as skeptics and scientists who simply have a different interpretation of the evidence -- for example, that the Genesis flood was responsible for the fossils we see on earth.
Yeah, sure, maybe they're right too. "Who knows"?
The whole thing is just childish. If you talk to a climate scientist and come to them with your questions and skepticism, which is perfectly reasonable, they can answer your questions. Perhaps some questions aren't answerable -- and much is still uncertain, no doubt. But what you're engaging in isn't that -- it's taking climate "skeptics" positions and talking points and dressing it up as being a neutral observer. Yet you've demonstrated zero understanding of the evidence so far -- zero. You cite only climate "skeptics," you talk about how we can't trust the scientific community, you talk about "climate gate", "mass media hysteria," "alarmism," etc. All this points to the same direction: you've made up your mind already, and have indeed taken a side without the slightest effort to understand the evidence.
You've also hand-waved at a post of mine explaining climate change in detail, saying something about the use of "scientific graphs" while ignoring the rest. I doubt you read it. But it would do you some good to do so.
So let's not pretend this is anything but dressed up denial. If you deny the human impact of climate change, you're a climate change denier. And that's what you're doing.
Quoting spirit-salamander
This has nothing to do with "scientism." Please stop using terms you don't understand.
Yes, they would take science very seriously indeed. Certainly from Descartes (one of the "founders" of modern science) onward -- and that's obvious to anyone who's read them.
At "face value" is meaningless to me -- you can simply look at the evidence and arguments and make a decision as a layperson. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming; to deny it is ignorance, pure and simple.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Of course it has. Astrology is nonsense. Astronomy, on the other hand, is fascinating.
Thanks for the cristal ball gazing. Most reassuring, if you believe this kind of stuff.
A pleasure to read your post.
Many post-modern ills are - if not exactly caused - certainly exacerbated by our blindness to the functional importance of J.S.Mills treatise concerning individual liberty and the utility of free speech. Speech, Thought and Ideas are the vital ingredients that sustain civilisation and help buttress the human tendency towards barbarity. Jordan Peterson repeatedly makes the point, that, there is little technical distinction between censoring free speech and censoring thought. The history of Science is a history of ideas that challenged orthodoxy.
Attempts at developing general purpose Artificial Intelligence has been stymied by the problem of Computational Explosion; As you state:"The world is always much, much more complex than we think."
Neither a computer, nor a human can identify all of the data, model all of the alternatives and their subsequent consequences to determine the optimum decision. If discourse is limited to orthodoxy we cannot hope to solve any complex problems.
Nuclear Power is one proven source of energy production that could consistently deliver the necessary base-load power required by modern cities without the burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the climate orthodoxy is risk averse to the use of Nuclear Power and so there is only muted public discourse on this subject.
Whilst, there are concerns and risks posed by Nuclear Energy Reactors: i.e. Chernobyl, Fukushima...the latest technical solutions can substantially mitigate those risks and some suggest they may even eliminate most of them. Either way, if Climate Change is an existential threat then, even in the worst case, the more localised threats associated with Nuclear Reactors are solutions that should have been pursued decades ago. The fact that they have not been is so fundamentally irrational that it cannot help but raise concerns that the climate hysteria is driven by something other than science.
So my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. And very little about the processes in and between these layers.
Why is this important? Well, the denier of man-made climate change, needs to show that other factors are of much greater importance to climate change. That is, after all, what the debate is about. No one is denying change per se.
That other factors are mainly responsible for climate change I can't show to your satisfaction yet, unfortunately, but I can point out by means of mainstream science articles that we really still know very little about the possible other factors such as solar influence. I honestly think we also know less than the articles would have us believe.
There are therefore good reasons to be skeptical, to say the least. Skeptical about the fact that humans alone really control the climate and can change it through CO2 emissions or reduction. It is probably hubris to believe that we are changing the climate, and more likely that we are simply helplessly exposed to it. After all, before there was any human being, there was already climate change. And The Science says that in an ice age, in which we are, the climate is particularly unstable.
There are countless articles more. These are just the ones I could find at first go:
Venus: the hot spot
'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration
THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE
Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?
[...]
Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”
https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions
No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere
It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.
This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.
This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/
Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond
A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond
[b]New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed[/b]
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.
[...]
Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.
https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html
What is Space Plasma?
Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma
Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System
Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193
The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling
Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500?km) in DJF
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890
Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?
Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere
Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends
Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035
[b]Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years
The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.[/b]
https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved
Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity
The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity
Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’
“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes
The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View
Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/
Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress
Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html
[b]Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not
Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.[/b]
Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not
'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun
NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232
Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so
Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.
We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."
This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/
That is true as far as you are concerned: you know indeed very little about these things. But others do know much more than you do, because they have studied those things.
Just for the sake of argument, what if astrology were true? How would it affect your scientific worldview and philosophy?
Some scientists deny any suggestion of a causal effect if there is no known connection. Others are more willing to accept some ‘effect at a distance’ without knowing the actual mechanism at work. Xtrix, by my judgement, may fall a little more towards the requirement of some mechanism being explicable than I do … such differences are useful though and opposing stances help reveals more reliable approaches.
For me if I shake do X and Y happens far more often than not I will continue to do X if Y is what I want. I would still be curious about how X produces Y, and question if it really did do anything, but it would not really matter that much.
My question was intended as a psychological test. I think many might say: should astrology turn out to work by whatever means, then I no longer believe anything science has told me so far. And that would reveal quite a bit about the mindset of these people.
What do you think about my list of articles?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258
Would you say that this fact is problematic?
And many do not realize how spiteful, how contemptuous, how prejudiced and biased the scientific debates have been throughout history. Many scientists took their view for granted and made fun of other views, mocking their inventors/discoverers.
I haven’t looked at the articles at all and probably won’t. Not a topic that interests me massively tbh
Not an easy question to answer. I recommend a cautious approach - not dismissive but also not to dive headfirst into it. There must be a very good reason why ideas like astrology didn't make the cut so to speak - academics reject them outright as rubbish.
That's right. But I think everyone can soberly say for themselves, what if. For example, a friend of mine once said that if astrology proved to be correct in any sense, his world view would be completely turned upside down. Of course, this is all very hypothetical, because, as you say, if any "evidence" would have been brought to him, he would not have accepted it. And I also heard once, an opponent of the moon conspiracy theories say: Even if NASA, set the case, would deny someday officially the moon landings in the 60s and 70s with reasons, he would not believe it nevertheless, and he would also be confident to be able to disprove NASA in this.
Paul Feyerabend once played the devil's advocate and defended astrology, and he saw that the arguments against the very ancient tradition of astrology were exceedingly weak.
Mr. Paul could have argued well, I wouldn't know - there's always one guy/gal in the ER who insists on continuing the resuscitation procedure even after the patient is beyond all help.
There's nothing wrong with having some fun. Don't confuse scientists with robots.
Science does not proceed by argument, but by demonstration. The very idea of a universal force of attraction that acts at a distance is quite ridiculous; but Newton demonstrated that his gravitational calculations worked. Science is convincing because the magic works. Astrology is unconvincing because the magic does not work.
Do you say so because you have already studied the history and systematic astrology in depth and have tested it on yourself and others? Or do you say so in advance because it just seems absurd to you?
The latter attitude among scientists was, as is known, rightly criticized by Paul Feyerabend, in my opinion. Here you can read about it:
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/paul-feyerabends-defense-of-astrology-i/
Quoting unenlightened
Astrologers would object, of course. The astrological "laws" are inviolable for them just like the Newtonian ones, but they concern qualities of experience instead of quantities. That's their theory.
This is what a German astrologer (Johannes Vehlow) once said: “Astrology is deep truth, and everyone, if he makes an effort, can verify these truths on his own body, and if the investigations are not made too superficially, surely many a "Saul" will become "Paul".” [Astrologie ist tiefe Wahrheit, und jeder kann, wenn er sich bemüht, diese Wahrheiten am eigenen Leibe überprüfen, und wenn die Untersuchungen nicht zu oberflächlich vorgenommen werden, wird sicher mancher "Saulus" zum "Paulus".]
For the sake of argument and per impossibile, what do you think you would feel if the claims of astrology, in whatever sense, turned out to be true: sad, disappointed, happy, fascinated, thrilled?
Quoting unenlightened
Would you say then that something cannot be valid concerning the ontological interpretations of Newton's formulas? Because the principle of the sufficient ground must still be accepted?
Sure, but still there is an ideal of the scientist. A standard to which all scientists want and should adhere. Love of truth and objectivity, sobriety, modesty, contempt for money and fame, apoliticalness, being factually nuanced and fair, patience, more head-driven than emotion-driven, frankness and honesty, and much more are part of the ideal. Also very important is fearlessness.
Quoting Olivier5
And not to forget: He laughs best that laughs last.
Maybe it's not magic:
Astrophysicist Dr. Percy Seymour magnetic theory of astrology
Long list of superhuman qualities you got there. By this token, only God is a scientist. And yet, a lack of humor was not mentioned in your super long list. So scientists can poke fun at others, yes?
I would say that validity pertains to argument, not to demonstration. If you want to send a rocket to the moon, or fire a shell at your enemy, or construct a pendulum for your clock, Newton's formula will help you to hit the target. That is a claim you can test or not, it is not an argument.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I hate to be picky, but there is no demonstration of anything there, only a vague theory, that does not have any particular implications that could be tested and demonstrated. If it was so tested and could be so demonstrated, then it would be science. Until then, it's waffle. Scientists can and do have all sorts of strange ideas, but only those they can demonstrate are accepted by their fellows, however clever their arguments.
And your thesis is wrong.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Why would this be “unfortunate”?
Quoting spirit-salamander
Humans “alone” don’t “control” the earth’s climate. No climate scientist ever has or ever will make that claim. So that’s another fabrication.
Human activity has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is why the planet is warming at an alarming rate. Your ignorance and fabrication doesn’t change this fact— sorry.
See my post that explains this for beginners. If you can’t do that, I have no interest in taking time to read articles you Google (which don’t seem to support your position at all).
This is in spite of, not because of, the policies that the green movement support and in many places have had governments bring into force.
It always reminds me of the poem “Fire and Ice” by Robert Frost. I’d much rather the climate stave off the ice age and warming is one way to accomplish that. In other words, since climate changes, it’s changing in a suitable direction. I hold with those who favor fire.
What I fear most is the lengths people will go to in order alter what they believe is a terrifying future. Crazy experiments, vast systems of coercion and control, and many lives sacrificed on the alter of safety and planning—all of these are a greater threat, to me.
So you don't think that ideals should be pursued. Isn't that what one teaches children? Ideal parents, ideal politicians, ideal students, etc., even if they are only weakly realized or counterfactual.
I'm not a native English speaker, but "poking fun" doesn't sound too bad, or it seems to me to be very general and cover a spectrum, from mild friendly humor to wicked mocking. Genuine humor is, after all, a virtue.
I had rather imagined mean bullying, tasteless scorn wrapped in jokes.
So you're an instrumentalist, a pragmatist, a non-realist?
Quoting unenlightened
And you are a skeptic?
:up: Argumentum ad absurdo? I don't quite understand how funny = bad argument?
As an aside: Science began as skepticism in re religion; now, as a girl said to me a coupla weeks ago, it's being given a taste of its own medicine (climate skeptics). A full circle and not a pleasant one. I suppose climate skepticism is just one of many fed-up-with-science movements. It'll be interesting to watch how it all pans out.
Imagine away. Scientists are human beings like you and me. Some do scorn, others don't. In any case, to make fun of cretins is legit in my book. That'd be the reason God created cretins: to make us laugh.
Quoting Xtrix
I think that's a bit disingenuous on your part.
If you read my listed snippets from scientific articles, then you will realize, hand on your heart and frankly speaking and free from prejudice, that we still understand very little about the mechanisms in the atmosphere. And until we know a lot in this area, we can't say that CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily responsible for warming. Sorry, you are just wrong and blinded.
When do you think they first talked about man-made climate change caused by CO2? I can tell you that in that time period, much less was known. So the thesis was absolutely speculative. Any honest researcher should exercise caution and restraint. Because he can quickly be completely wrong with lack of knowledge, which includes the unexplored and unknown factors.
If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that my thesis is not absurd.
And I have already read such graphs as you have posted. So you are not telling me anything new. Do you really think that there is absolutely rigorous methodology and precise science behind these graphs?
I've seen official climate graphs that showed that there have been times in Earth's history when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was higher than it is today and it was still much colder, and conversely times when there was less CO2 and it was much hotter than it is today.
But I'm sure you didn't know the points I posted in my list.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/737258
Quoting Xtrix
You're not serious, are you? You only need to read the quotes I copied out, then it is clear that other mechanisms can primarily influence the climate. My thesis is thus not unfounded.
Please admit that a scientist should not make any statements yet, if not all influencing factors are known.
Do you admit that a majority of scientists can be wrong about a shared opinion?
Please read the quotes from the articles in such a way that they convey a general picture. Which picture do you think emerges?
Your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would agree with me at least partially, if not completely. They would see that I do not tell nonsense. As a philosopher, you should admit that I may be on the right track.
To all. What aPicture arises when you read the following quotes? Please read with an open mind.
Venus: the hot spot
'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration
THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE
Earth's atmosphere is leaking. Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space. Although missions such as ESA's Cluster fleet have long been investigating this leakage, there are still many open questions. How and why is Earth losing its atmosphere – and how is this relevant in our hunt for life elsewhere in the Universe?
[...]
Solar storms and periods of heightened solar activity appear to speed up Earth's atmospheric loss significantly, by more than a factor of three. However, key questions remain: How do ions escape, and where do they originate? What processes are at play, and which is dominant?”
https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere#:~:text=Earth's%20atmosphere%20is%20leaking.,are%20still%20many%20open%20questions
No-fly zone: Exploring the uncharted layers of our atmosphere
It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet. It’s a realm where planes can’t fly, balloons can’t float, and satellites soon plunge to a fiery end. So seldom have we visited it and so scanty is our knowledge of it that some scientists call it the ignorosphere.
This slice of the atmosphere is, at the same time, forbidden and forbidding. It holds both the coldest and the hottest air on Earth. It hosts elusive, shimmering clouds that can only be seen at night. And its moods can change in an instant, as turbulent winds from lower down mix with plasma arriving from the sun.
This unknown zone increasingly matters to us. We are sending up ever more satellites, which are vulnerable to flare-ups in the ignorosphere. Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/
Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond
A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond
[b]New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed[/b]
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.
[...]
Everything that happens in the Sun's outer atmosphere is dominated by the magnetic field, but we have very few measurements of its strength and spatial characteristics, Kuridze said.
https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html
What is Space Plasma?
Despite what a lot of people think, space isn't actually empty, and the Earth's magnetosphere is no exception! The magnetosphere is full of plasma of many different temperatures and densities - though most of it is too tenuous to see with the naked eye or even with a telescope. The air at sea level has a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 20 degrees C. The densest, coldest part of the magnetosphere, the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma
Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System
Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193
The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling
Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500?km) in DJF
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890
Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?
Earth’s atmosphere still holds many secrets for science, but with the latest satellite launches and long-running observations from the ground, we are now gathering far more and better quality data about the weather and climate than ever before.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere
Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends
Better understanding of causes of stratospheric trends and whether they are properly represented in climate models also has implications for understanding recent tropospheric climate change
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035
Mysteries of some atmospheric halos remain unexplained after 5,000 years
The origins of some atmospheric optical illusions remain unknown, even after millennia of observation.
https://www.space.com/atmospheric-halo-inventory-mystery-unsolved
Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity
The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity
Mysterious new type of Northern Lights spotted in the ‘ignorosphere’
“In terms of physics, this would be an astounding discovery, as it would represent a new and previously unobserved mechanism of interaction between the ionosphere and the atmosphere.”
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/new-northern-lights-discovered-dunes
The Hidden Magnetic Universe Begins to Come Into View
Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos. If these fields date back to the Big Bang, they could solve a major cosmological mystery.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/
Climate 'mysteries' still puzzle scientists, despite progress
Scientists are still unsure what part clouds play "in the energy balance of the planet" and their influence on the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases, he said.
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-climate-mysteries-puzzle-scientists.html
Is There a Greenhouse Effect in the Ionosphere, Too? Likely Not
Controversial observations of long-term changes in the ionosphere appear to be explained by the Sun’s 11-year cycle of activity, not human greenhouse gas emissions.
Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not
'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun
NASA satellites have uncovered giant magnetic ropes linking the Earth's atmosphere to the Sun and channelling solar energy to create the spectacular northern and southern lights shows.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232
Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so
Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.
We need to understand what we're looking at close-up in order to get a sense of the bigger picture. I hope this is a step towards understanding the magnetic field of our whole Galaxy, and of the Universe."
This might even, West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/
So to you, I am a cretin.
For me, you are a dishonest, disingenuous interlocutor.
You believe in God?
But I'm no longer interested in your answer either way.
You are philosophically a nothing.
You can call me whatever you like, I am not hot on -ismic identification, I am describing why I think some things are science and others are not. 'Pragmatist' would maybe be a good label for the position I am describing. But I am not a scientist, so I am not talking about myself. If we were talking about values or human society, or psychology, or God, I would be saying very different kinds of things, but if you wonder about the world heating up, you cannot beat a good thermometer.
First: we do understand a great deal about the atmosphere. There’s plenty to learn still — as with all sciences, it’s a continuous journey. Unless the field is dead.
Second, we can and do say that greenhouse gasses are responsible for warming. The evidence for this is overwhelming. I have a sample of the evidence in my post above, which you ignored. That speaks volumes about your willful ignorance.
So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence?
Quoting spirit-salamander
Your thesis is that “since we don’t know everything about the atmosphere, there’s no absolute certainty that humans are contributing to climate change.” That’s the thesis. It is indeed absurd. It’s made because you’re willfully ignorant about the evidence (and science), and continue to demonstrate this.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Which graph?
Yes, measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and measuring temperature are quite rigorous I’d say.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I’m not a philosopher.
And you’re not on the right track. Sorry.
(From one of your sources. Just FYI. Maybe read them next time.)
Funny how this stupidity doesn’t get invoked unless the subject matter has been politicized — or, in the case of creationists, goes against religious belief.
Suddenly they become “skeptics” or, sadder still, argue that they know more than the thousands of people who have studied the issue their entire lives — all because they’ve spent a few minutes reading Bjorn Lomborg.
Nothing else quite exposes one’s ignorance and irrationality like this. In politics and economics there’s always some wiggle room — in science, it’s obvious.
In sadness, one is reduced to psychology.
It's a matter of identification. Just as folk will die for 'their country', so they will die for their way of life, their car, their tv dinner. In claiming that my way of life is going to destroy us all, you are attacking and insulting me and 'The American Way'. Therefore you must be part of a communist conspiracy.
A veritable blockbuster script: Humanity dodges the source of its own destruction and big capitalism saves the world.
Yet, no dice.
Instead of any practical commitment to immediately replace the dirty energy with something clean - we instead are trapped in an endless parade of pseudo -religious rituals that merely require us all to affirm our commitment to the climate creed. From the cafe to the parliament, the game is to be the most convincing, the most passionate, set the largest targets, make great proclamations...
It is heresy to just ask how these targets can be met. What technology will be used? When it might be ready? Rational questions are evidence of disbelief. It is merely cloak worn by deceitful deniers.
But it looks more to me that we have only begun to learn about it. How is it that in 2006 an expert admitted a complete lack of knowledge? If it is so clear that Venus is without doubt a greenhouse case, how could the expert utter such a statement?
[i]'It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,' said Professor Fred Taylor, a planetary scientist based at Oxford University and one of the ESA's chief advisers for the Venus Express mission.' It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.'
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration[/i]
This does not seem to validate your point either:
[i]The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study, which can potentially change our understanding of the solar atmosphere and its effects on Earth.
https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/04/01/New-insight-into-how-Suns-powerful-magnetic-field-effects-Earth.html[/i]
Only in 2019, after many years of discussions about how much the sun influences the climate, we found out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Perhaps even stronger, because we are still learning. This puts all previous discussions in a completely different context. This new discovery with a lot of room for improvement can potentially change our previous assumptions. I would say, perhaps completely change.
Surely this is no small matter? The IPCC claims that the sun has only a very minor and negligible influence on global warming. But this thesis seems to me to be potentially faltering. Perhaps CO? will remain the main factor as before, but perhaps only with a 60 to 40 superiority. Surely these are questions that can be asked?
You seem to be saying that we already know a lot, or almost everything. And we're just learning a lot of little details, and we're not going to finish finding all the little details. That's at least the impression I have of you. But my quotes seem to create a different impression. At least from my point of view.
[i]It may not sound dramatic, but this moment, scheduled for early 2017, will mark a new era in human exploration. The probes will investigate a forbidden zone surrounding our planet.
Electrical disturbances in this region can scramble GPS signals and other communications. And its influence may even stretch down to ground level and alter our weather.[/i]
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-400-nofly-zone-exploring-the-uncharted-layers-of-our-atmosphere/
Again, something scientifically major is taking place very late, long after the experts have already come to terms with the fact that the sun is not contributing much to climate change. From the point of view of the philosophy of science, I think this is problematic. After all, my point was that we don't really know about the interaction of the Earth's atmospheres yet, you denied that. But this quote confirms my point. We have only begun to learn, because how else could it still be an open question in the quote that influences might reach down to the earth's ground?
We know that the earth's atmosphere extends even beyond the moon:
[i]Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond[/i]
And we know that the earth still lies in the atmosphere of the sun:
[i]Although we live in the atmosphere of Earth, the entire Earth lies in the atmosphere of the Sun—and the upper reaches of our own atmosphere are inextricably linked to the Sun’s activity.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/is-there-a-greenhouse-effect-in-the-ionosphere-too-likely-not[/i]
These are amazing facts, which create a whole new picture about the solar system in our minds. This picture alone makes the idea that variations in solar influence on global climate change is insignificant somewhat dubious.
Even part of the earth's atmosphere is hotter than the surface of the sun:
[i]the plasmasphere has between 10 and 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre and a temperature of 58,000 degrees C - hotter than the surface of the Sun!
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/space-plasma-physics/what-space-plasma[/i]
And these energies are probably getting through to us:
[i]geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193[/i]
And:
[i]Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500?km) in DJF
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890[/i]
This is done via electromagnetism:
[i]"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," NASA scientist David Sibeck said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-12/magnetic-ropes-connect-earth-to-sun/985232[/i]
All this is not conveyed to the layman by the media. It is also clear why. Because this picture undermines the thesis of the IPCC, that the sun has little influence on climate change.
Electromagnetism in space is only now being explored. However, it has apparently influence on planetary formations, and thus probably also on the planetary climates.
[i]Astronomers are discovering that magnetic fields permeate much of the cosmos.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/[/i]
And:
[i]Is the earth hanging by cosmic ropes inside a magnetic tunnel? Some scientists think so
Scientists are only beginning to learn more about these magnetic fields, and West is determined to understand as much as possible about why they exist and how they influence star and planet formation.
West noted hopefully, someday include our own solar system.
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/is-the-earth-hanging-by-cosmic-ropes-inside-a-magnetic-tunnel-some-scientists-think-so/[/i]
Maybe more CO? will make the world warmer, but may have little to do with storms and natural disasters.
[i]Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere
During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142[/i]
The connections reach at least to the very bottom.
Climate research depends mainly on modeling. But how can the models be meaningful if many factors cannot yet be properly assessed?
Quoting Xtrix
I offer you a theoretical, speculative, but not outlandish compromise. 50 percent of global warming goes to us, as you put it, and 50 goes to electromagnetic processes triggered by the sun.
Quoting Xtrix
I had even seen that while skimming. I was only interested in giving an impression, so I also cherrypicked, and in this one case omitted important information. But this information is weakened again by the other quotes.
Quoting Xtrix
If you want to insult me, please do so directly.
Quoting Xtrix
Then forget about Lomberg and co. They could all be idiots, although I don't think they give that impression.
But you will admit that many scientists were alone with their thesis at first. And later the correctness of their idea has been confirmed. This is a triviality in the history of science.
But maybe - who knows? - the German physicist Ralf D. Tscheuschner suffers from a similar situation:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann"
https://arxiv.org/a/tscheuschner_r_1.html
I didn't so much want to label as to inquire what your position is more precisely. If I gave the impression of merely labeling you, then I apologize. But knowledge of philosophical positions in philosophical discussions is very important, in my opinion.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, that's right. But even that is not a simple task, especially when it comes to the world's climate. Any physicist would confirm that.
For one can ascribe fundamentality exclusively to the maximally small (microphysics) or to the maximally large (cosmos) or represent an Aristotelian substance priority or just a pure instrumentalism.
These views have influence on which physical theory one comes to.
Quoting unenlightened
The important thing is to remain logically consistent overall, otherwise there is nothing wrong with it.
Which 'climate' exactly are you suggesting is being denied?
I'll go through some of the claims you make. I feel I'm being charitable by doing so rather than ignoring you outright. But let me say from the beginning: you don't know what you're talking about, and you're being deluded by climate denial propaganda. Wherever you got these "sources," they're either misleading, half-truths, out of context, cherry-picked, or outright lies. I'll demonstrate this below.
The climate is changing at an alarming rate. The climate "always changes," yes -- but human's contributions the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, has added trillions of tons of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere while also cutting down billions of trees. This added amount, even after the oceans absorb a lot of it, has accelerated the rate of change of the global average temperature. None of this is controversial in the scientific community, where there's nearly 100% consensus about it. We're seeing the changes all around us.
The "controversy" exists for one reason: there's a massive and powerful industry that benefits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. They have followed a similar playbook as the tobacco industry -- denial, doubt, delay. I suggest you broaden your readings and balance out the fossil fuel-funded propaganda with ANYTHING from the scientific community. If you think you've stumbled on something that challenges the consensus, or if you have questions -- GOOGLE IT. You'll find counter-arguments, rebuttals, answers, or well-needed context from climatologists. If you're not willing to do that, and only want to spread misinformation here instead, I'm not interested.
For future reference, here's a list of usual climate denial talking points and responses by scientists:
Stages of Denial:
There’s nothing happening
Inadequate evidence:
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence:
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
"We don’t know why it’s happening" arguments:
There’s no consensus:
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
The models don’t work:
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible:
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
"Climate change is natural" arguments:
It happened before:
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change:
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2:
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/#Levels%20of%20Sophistication
You alone have already fallen into a few of these. "It's the sun," "We can't know for sure," "it's natural," etc. It's worth at least reading this site for some balance.
With that said:
Quoting spirit-salamander
That's because the quote is out of context, like nearly everything else you cite. From the same source and the same person (Fred Taylor):
Taylor is not doubting the greenhouse effect. He's saying there's a lot we don't know about how quickly it can skyrocket, like Venus did -- because new information is being learned about Venus. If you read the whole article, you'd see this.
There's a lot we don't know about the evolution of plants and animals -- tons, in fact. This doesn't mean we throw the fact of evolution into question.
Quoting spirit-salamander
The link you provide didn't work.
But claims about the sun being a main driver of climate change has long been argued, and is a frequent denialist talking point. It has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
The sun isn't responsible for climate change.
From NASA regarding Earth's magnetic field:
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/
Quoting spirit-salamander
We understand a lot, yes. Not everything, and not "almost everything." In the totality of what there is to know, human beings understand a fraction of it. If you added up everything we've written and experienced and were able to download into your brain, it'd still amount to a tiny fraction.
There's always a lot we don't know, a lot that will change/be adapted, etc. Using this fact as leverage for climate denial is a common ploy. It's the same ploy used in Holocaust denial, in creationism, in 9/11 conspiracies, etc. "How can we be SURE?" "There's a lot we don't know!"
They pick on the "gaps" in knowledge, which always exist, or else fall back on skeptical epistemology. This is usually when you can tell the person has no real understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, or climatology -- and that they're acting out of religious or political motives, not a genuine curiosity or genuine skepticism about an established field.
There's no good reason any longer to doubt that we evolved. There's no good reason to doubt that humans have effected the climate.
Quoting spirit-salamander
The article cited has a paywall, so I can't read all of it. But in any case, they're saying only that it MAY effect WEATHER. Weather is not climate. From what I found, it looks like climate change is affecting the various regions of the atmosphere, not vice versa.
This is another "god of the gaps" kind of argument. You don't understand it, neither do I. All we know is that there's an article that says we need to study it more. You choose to latch on to this and pretend like it's evidence of something relevant to climate change. It isn't. All it does is says we should study it, and there's a lot yet to learn. I've already conceded that, and have never denied it.
There's a lot we don't know. There's also a lot we do know. That's true of anything.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No, it doesn't.
Think for a second. Do you really believe climatologists have ignored this possibility (namely, the influence of the sun on climate change)?
The answer is: no, they haven't. In fact they've discussed it at length, and it's a few clicks away on the internet. Because you insist of being ignorant and refusing to read anything that doesn't reinforce your denial, you clearly won't be aware of this. So, once again, I'll do it for you:
https://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
Quoting spirit-salamander
It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved.
Quoting spirit-salamander
It does not depend "mainly on modeling." Another denialist talking point, I'm afraid. And the models that have existed have been remarkably accurate, despite new advances in data and technology:
Quoting spirit-salamander
That's not what I asked. You're dodging the question -- as expected.
Try again. What would you consider satisfactory evidence?
Quoting spirit-salamander
You have been doing this a lot, as demonstrated above. And that's only a fraction. The stuff you linked to about the atmosphere has little to no relevance to climate change, and if there is you've failed to demonstrate it.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I didn't say he was an idiot. He's not an idiot. But he's also not a climate scientist, and has been shown to be misleading with his interpretations and statistics. There's a reason the Wall Street Journal amplifies his voice on the editorial pages: it serves the fossil fuel industry very well indeed. The fact that you choose to listen to him, and other "skeptics", is telling. It's unbalanced.
I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change.
Are you unfamiliar with the term "climate denial" or is this just disingenuous nonsense? If the latter, I'm not interested.
If the former, you can look it up.
I have looked it up, and I'm not seeing any climate denial here.
Cool. I do.
Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap:
Very witty, yes. Does it gain us an ally or make the opponent dig in their heels?
What exactly do you want from the exchange? The gratification of pissing on someone else? Or making your position stronger in numbers?
Why would you?
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
I appreciate the kind comments. I wasn't going to bother at first, given I've been over this a hundred times before. But I'm glad I did. It was a kind of test for me.
By the time everyone comes around, I wonder how many will have died from climate-related catastrophes?
Tens of millions -- maybe more. Sad when you think the sole reason for this is money.
Why would it ever have entered your mind to ignore me, since I was and am ready for a discussion from the very beginning, and have shown doing so? Besides, you were already involved in the discussion in Global warming discussion -All opinions welcome. Being charitable should be part of any philosophical discussion, provided it comes from both parties.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, you're right, I'm ignorant about most of the detailed points on the subject. But surely that should not prevent me from forming my own opinion? I mean, it is part of human nature that opinions or intuitive judgments arise in the mind without the mind being able to fight against this arising. The mind can examine them afterwards, and discard or accept them, but it cannot prevent them from the outset. It is also undeniable that sometimes, in rare cases, an intuitive judgment directly hits the truth.
Quoting Xtrix
I had learned about a cosmological alternative model, according to which, as an incidental consequence, man-made climate change makes little sense. I am not saying that this alternative model is absolutely correct, but I had the impression that there might be something to this model. At the very least, it points to something that might be neglected in mainstream cosmology.
So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of.
From the point of view of philosophy of science, it is possible to include all empirical data under an alternative cosmology. Then all the details you provide as an argument would have to be interpreted differently. If this were to happen coherently, which I don't know that it could actually happen that way, then there would indeed be reason to doubt the mainstream model.
Quoting Xtrix
It was my intention to suggest said alternative picture. I wanted to be one-sided on purpose. You will admit that in a parallel universe such a picture might be true, where the climate on planets is mainly influenced by electromagnetic forces. My quotes, I think, created such an image.
Quoting Xtrix
I agree with you that this is a new, unprecedented situation for the Earth's atmosphere. And very likely, the Earth will become a greenhouse as a result.
But whether the Earth's atmosphere really functions like a built greenhouse in the lab is a question that may be asked, isn't it? And this question is ultimately at issue when an alternative explanation is offered. Because one could say that the other factors about which we do not yet have full knowledge do not occur at all in the laboratory experiment.
Since you are much more knowledgeable than I am, what do you say about these papers? Are their thesis completely ruled out? I have no way of telling. I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Abstract from the paper
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
As an aside, do you think it's possible that the natural climate change you admit could take a course that would effectively counteract the change we're causing?
Quoting Xtrix
That may definitely be the case here and there. But on the other hand, there is also the accusation of ideological and political influence of the so-called alarmists.
Be that as it may, the proponents of the alternative cosmological model I mentioned don't give the impression that the oil industry is behind them. I would consider that highly unlikely.
I myself, for example, cannot drive a car and I would be happy if there were no more noisy, smoking cars on the streets. So I am completely unaffected by the fossil fuel car industry.
Quoting Xtrix
Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat?
Quoting Xtrix
I will visit that sometime.
Quoting Xtrix
So it can be said that with his statement tending to exaggeration, which I quoted, Taylor is completely misleading and not at all in harmony with that which you further quoted and explained.
You say:
Quoting Xtrix
Taylor says:
Quoting spirit-salamander
Your description seems to be correct, nevertheless, one cannot miss a contrast in the language.
In this book (The Scientific Exploration of Venus, Fredric W. Taylor · 2014 · ?Science), Taylor states:
“the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case [Venusian polar vortex] any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations.”
Quoting Xtrix
From my country, the link works. Maybe you can google it and then come to the site.
Quoting Xtrix
Now we come to a point where you don't fully convince me.
Let's say hypothetically that the previously assumed electromagnetic force of the sun has 1% influence on global warming. Now it turns out that it is 10 times stronger than assumed. Then it is perhaps not improbable that the influence on earth climate is now 10% percent. And this would not be a small matter?
No proof of significant impact, or no proof of impact at all? I think that is already an important difference. But they seem to be saying that there is a minimal impact that now, however, has to be thought of as possibly tenfold due to new knowledge.
Here again the title of the article.
[i]New insight into how Sun's powerful magnetic field affects Earth
The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously assumed[/i]
It only says indefinite affect on the earth. But why should the climate be excluded there?
You quote:
But isn't that at odds with what I quoted?
[i]The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top-down” vertical coupling
Magnetic field changes from 1900 to 2000 cause significant changes in temperature and wind in the whole atmosphere system (0–500?km) in DJF
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890[/i]
And:
[i]Coupling between Geomagnetic Field and Earth’s Climate System
Historical and contemporary changes in climate system put a lot of questions, the answers to which are difficult. This motivates scientists from different branches to look for various factors with a potential influence on the climate system. Geomagnetic field is one of the proposed factors, due to the rendered multiple evidence for spatially or temporary co-varying geomagnetic field and climate, at different time scales. In this chapter, we clarify that hypothesized geomagnetic influence on climate could be reasonably explained through the mediation of energetic particles, propagating in Earth’s atmosphere, and their influence on the ozone density in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/81193[/i]
And maybe:
[i]Atmospheric Metal Layers Appear with Surprising Regularity
The metals in those layers come originally from meteoroids blasting into Earth’s atmosphere, which bring an unknown amount of material to earth; and the regularly appearing layers promise to help researchers understand better how earth’s atmosphere interacts with space, ultimately supporting life.
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/atmospheric-metal-layers-appear-surprising-regularity[/i]
And:
[i]Connections between deep tropical clouds and the Earth's ionosphere
During the daytime, neutral winds at lower thermospheric heights (ca. 110–150 km) interact with the ionospheric plasma in the so-called E-region, causing the comparatively massive ions to be dragged along by the neutral particles, separating them from the electrons whose motion is constrained by the magnetic field.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030142[/i]
What do you say to that? You've dodged these quotes so far. Or have I taken something completely out of context?
The next find is interesting. The scientist affirms man-made climate change, and yet he says that climatologies are not aware of certain forces:
[i]The basic premise of this article is that human generated electromagnetic radiation is contributing to global warming.
The reality of climate change is finally being acknowledged by world leaders. While of little comfort to those already subjected to disastrous weather conditions, there is optimism that efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions will lead to more stability in the world’s weather system. Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction).
This article outlines a possible scenario in which KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction) brought to the earth by cosmic rays, participates in the formation of heat-reflective cloud cover by activating cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This process may be rendered less effective if some of the KELEA is removed from cosmic rays by its attachment to fluctuating electrical fields that accompany the increasing electromagnetic radiations present within the earth’s atmosphere. The proposed reduction in cloud formation may potentially be remediated by devising alternative means of delivering KELEA to the atmosphere. Moreover, an understanding of KELEA can immediately lead to significant worldwide reductions in carbon emissions.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=64084[/i]
Quoting Xtrix
You want to say that we are still going to learn a lot of things. Countless new discoveries. But implicitly, you are saying that all the new discoveries will no longer contribute significantly to our already established picture of climate change. Isn't that scientifically dubious? Cumulatively acquired new knowledge may very well change our picture meaningfully.
Quoting Xtrix
I go with my claim strongly down, and say only that the influence of the sun can be bigger than assumed up to now. Saying that is not scandalous.
Quoting Xtrix
Strange. For me it is not behind a paywall. Must be due to the country IP.
This is a trivial objection. Climate is weather only stretched over long time. If it can possibly effect weather, why not for decades, then it also effects the climate.
Quoting Xtrix
Climatologists are unlikely to be aware of recent research pointing to a natural force termed KELEA (kinetic energy limiting electrostatic attraction
If they miss that, then they might miss some other things, too. Whatever that is. Even if they know about it, they can't immediately integrate it into their understanding. Keyword Thomas Kuhn. What cannot be integrated immediately is first pushed aside.
I can well imagine a climatologist answering my question about how far the earth's atmosphere reaches, that it does not go as far as the moon. You overestimate scientists. They are usually too specialized. Too fixated on what they are doing at the moment.
I have found this opinion:
[i]Exactly how the sun works is not well understood. Some scientists believe the suns activity is a direct cause similar to a camp fire while other scientists believe the sun's activities are tied to electromagnetic forces that flow throughout the solar system. Some solar researchers reported in 2015 that the sun is entering into a period of very low activity which will result in global cooling around 2030-2040. If these scientists are correct decades from now we may be worrying about global cooling.
https://eu.gastongazette.com/story/opinion/columns/2017/10/14/my-turn-natural-causes-of-climate-change/18293386007/[/i]
My point is that the electromagnetic effect of the sun is possibly underestimated, as it is not yet sufficiently researched. So it's not about solar heating alone.and visible solar irradiance. It is mainly about electromagnetic effects that are not easily detectable. That they are explored slowly, some of my quotations have made clear.
Quoting Xtrix
I have expressed myself badly. I meant that CO2 could only cause warming, but the storms and hurricanes may only be due to the magnetic influence of the sun.
Quoting spirit-salamander
What would you say he is right about. Or is he always wrong?
This isn't true. Here.
All should be aware that pointing to today's weather as a sign of climate change is a mistake. We're always one volcano away from a cooling event, so if the public thinks we can determine climate change from the weather, they'll be led astray.
It is true. Air isn't ferrous and rarely does the magnetic field have an impact on the troposphere. If it does, it's an indirect one -- but that's fairly controversial and not much is known about it. The direct impact remains confined mainly to the ionosphere.
Here. From NASA.
From your cited article:
We know that variability in the electromagnetic field affects the whole atmosphere. It has an impact on weather, so the statement you posted,
is just wrong. It does affect the weather.
So we know there's a relationship. We don't know the mechanism. This has been echoed in other articles.
Again, that’s fairly controversial. But if it does, it’s indirect. In any case— take it up with NASA. The statement was theirs, not mine. But I’ll go with NASA over you and one article.
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25433882-200-does-earths-magnetic-field-affect-the-weather/
It sounds like you have a theory about the mechanism. Since holes open up in the field during a shift, we'd get a little more radiation than we normally get. Is that how you explain the historic correlation?
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. I'm familiar with the source of that statement. That the atmosphere isn't ferrous is true. Unfortunately, the rest of the statement conflicts with high quality research.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. We're on the same side here. Neither of us wins anything for being right about whether a shift in the electromagnetic field would do much to the weather.
An opinion shaped by sources like Lomborg and Alex Epstein and Koonin. All variations of climate denial.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No it’s precisely the kind I’m thinking about. “It’s mostly natural” is a very common line of denial. You happen to like the one about the sun. Others say clouds. Still others say volcanoes. It’s all the same to me: nonsense.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Do me a favor and take CO2, fill a class container with it, and fill the other with ambient air. Put both under a heat lamp and see which one is warmer (and for longer).
It’s really that simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s not opinion, it’s physics.
Quoting spirit-salamander
That’s because you’re ignorant. You’re ignorant regarding the overwhelming evidence for global warming and the impact of humans on it. This is why there’s a consensus to begin with. There’s consensus about evolution, too — but it’s not necessarily the consensus we’re exclusively interested in — although that matters — it’s the evidence. If you’re ignorant about the evidence, then you really shouldn’t just engage in armchair speculation about it.
Quoting spirit-salamander
The problem is that they aren’t alarmist enough.
You never answered my question about what evidence you would consider satisfactory.
I’ll skip the rest.
Very sci fi.