Climate Change: We're Doomed

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:13 pm

tatpurusa wrote:Just see what has been written in the last 10-15 years about Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, war on terror, humanitarian spreading of democracy, humanitarian bombing, surgical bombing, etc. etc. etc.

I really can't see how the reporting of war and political unrest compares to the reporting of climate study. I always considered the latter a peaceful pursuit.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:00 am

Can we please leave the media alone here, folks, except for their role in reporting our topic?

:thanks:
Kim

:focus:
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:39 am

RE: Malcolm
Women and Gender Studies is a different topic altogether (and I didn't even mention children so I don't know why you brought that up). So I won't reply to that because we'll end up on another tangent. If I have time after this thread perhaps I'll start a new one where I can explain some of the issues with it. For the record though, I don't think that it's all bogus, and I am currently doing a four year project on females in Buddhism, for confidentiality I won't say any more, but I am aware that they are often invisible, particularly in the third world. That's really not the issue, which has more to do with the "gender" part than the "woman" part. I am not sure why you excluded the term "gender," perhaps you knew that this is what I would have an issue with. But more on that another time.

As for the idea about government expansion being inherent to the democratic system, this is not actually a libertarian idea, it actually directly contradicts the goals of libertarians. Libertarians in the US want to wind back the government to adherence to the constitution of 1789. I am saying that if that is done, you may see short term benefits, but in the long run it will grow again.

Libertarians see this as a conspiracy, yes. I don't, this is not organised in any way. Conspiracies require planning and organisation by a group of people. I am claiming that this is inherent to the democratic form of governance. It's a systematic structural issue, not a criminological one one.

As for the idea that it's a conspiracy, Malcolm and Kim both, I never made this claim. Please don't attribute it to me. :thanks:

RE: Kim
Using the term cult is merely rhetorical. The point is not that AGW = Jonestown. The point is that AGW uses techniques of persuasion that cults do too - that's what makes it so influential. In the end, AGW is fundamentally a call to action, that's why it has the same features as a cult. Maybe this is a coincidence, and I don't think there's anything inherent in the idea of cults or religions which distinguishes them as anything particular - but what is particular about cults is the psychological effect they have on the mind. What differentiates AGW from the way universities usually influences politics, is that usually political trends are influenced by the advice of public policy departments, who review problems and solutions seen in new research in the sciences and the humanities. Then there are parliamentary inquiries, inquests, and commissions at which scientists and other experts testify to politicians, who suggest action based upon the culminating report. At these events there's a good chance you'll get two sides, or more, of a story - sometimes you get dreadful ones where non-expert advice is taken with the same weight as those of scientists, but this is not super common though I can think of a dozen examples on the top of my head from the past few years. Then you have a different animal altogether, which more or less only exists in climatology, which is the activist scientist who works with activist organisations to promote their theory. Their tactics are those of activists, mocking, shaming, and ridiculing anyone who holds an opposing view point or a shadow of a doubt. You must admit that this is a very different animal from the way science works in other fields.

As for your claim about hoodwinking the US and Chinese government. This is actually quite incorrect. The US spends $1.042 Billion under the EPA for the promotion of climate change, and the government issued billions more in loans for renewable energy corporations with the justification of anthropogenic global warming, the most famous of which was the $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to Solyndra. I don't disagree with the idea of the government funding research and technology in renewable energy and a cleaner environment, please don't turn this into a straw man, all I am doing is pointing out that the US government for the most part accepts AGW and acts under the assumption that AGW is correct. The same story is more or less the same in China. The truth is, China's use of coal is because of demand which otherwise would be met by blackouts. There is no renewable currently available that will sufficiently supply China's electricity needs, without the coming Chinese population collapse. At the same time, they do all they can, and all they can afford, probably far more than the US, to fund carbon neutral projects and transportation. If you go to China, you will see that they are in fact investing more that the west is in clean public transit. This isn't about making money, you need to have compassion because there's only so much developing countries can do without going broke, and renewable energy is less efficient and more expensive. I really don't think you can call opposition to AGW a cult, because there's no end goal like there is in AGW, and it comes almost entirely from individual scientists, rather than activist groups. Yes, there are outliers like Rupert Murdoch's news outlets, which really put a bad face on the opposition to AGW, please don't mistake all people who don't believe in AGW for the kind of pundits you see in Murdoch's media. As for politicians, it's more or less going to be the same story until the media consensus shifts to a reasonable, non-Murdoch, analysis of the issue. Right now, you can't deny AGW and get elected, you'll just get lampooned by the media and the activist community. Even Tony Abbott believes in AGW. You see, the trend over history is that progressive causes always win. Conservatives are progressives with one or two policies different - the majority of their policies would be radical by standards a few decades ago. It doesn't matter if the cause is right or good for the country, if the progressive establishment supports it, it will become public policy. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just the nature of the democratic system. And no one who supports AGW denial is getting any buckets of gold - you won't be getting Hansen level funding for not supporting a popular policy, because it isn't going to make anyone more money. On the whole, only AGW proponents become millionaires. Ask any professor who denies AGW, I know more than a few, and they will laugh and tell you they wish they got money from the oil companies for the amount of work they put into their research. Oil companies have funded anti AGW think tanks, but think tanks don't actually do the research that contradicts AGW and are quivalent to the billion dollar industry of AGW activism. Yes, it is true that Willie Soon was funded by oil companies, but one is not a rule, and scientists will accept money from any sources if they offer it to do their research. Soon said he'd accept money from Greenpeace if they'd offer it to him, and despite this, he actually argues in his papers "no position," that AGW can neither be confirmed nor denied. Why would he be influenced by oil companies, if he finds no position, yet the scientists who aren't funded by oil companies, are proponents of anti-AGW? The majority of data which draws AGW into doubt, comes from government funded research such as NASA satellite observations, weather balloon readings, and astronomical observations - you can't fund data out of its results, you can only falsify data out of its results, and so far only proponents of AGW have been found guilty of doing that. It's possible that NASA scientists fudged the data like the ones at East Anglia, but as far as I know this isn't the case.
Kim O'Hara wrote:That is simply not true. Contemporary climate science is based on, and connected to, basic physics and chemistry and it has been tested all the way by the best scientific practice we have, peer review. If you deny climate science, you deny all science.

While it is not true that denying climate science is denying all science - which is a debate about philosophy of science, and a different topic - it is true that climate science is based on physics and chemistry, and that it uses peer review. The topic of climate science is the study of meteorological events, explaining why they occur the way they do. Using the facts we have derived from observation, we present as best possible an explanation of why the exhibits in the hypothesis do what they do. Then, we draw our conclusions, which are fundamentally our opinions of the veracity of the theory - which in the best circumstances are based in a good understanding about the theory's consistency with other accepted theories. The actual discovery of the data is the job of the researchers funded by the government at NASA and the universities. That is not "science" as a whole, science is the conclusion drawn, i.e. the consensus we have, which is usually based upon peer review. Science is thus the body of papers that follow the scientific method accumulated over the years.

Both pro-AGW and anti-AGW theories have been drawn, and there are conclusions supporting and opposing both theories. The question as to what the consensus is, is obscured by the presence of AGW activists, who repeatedly claim the consensus has been drawn. These activists, like John Cook whose data you previously referred to, use flawed methodologies, misunderstanding where and how the arguments have been made or presented. As regards the proponent arguments, the author misclassified the papers. For example, Nicola Scafetta from Duke University denied that his peer-reviewed paper accurately supported the consensus position, despite this, Cook's analysis classifies his paper in the 97% supporting AGW. These reports and arguments are based on a straw man argument because they don't correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which isn't that anthropogenic emissions have contributed to over 50% of global warming since 1900, but rather 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emissions, this is how their feedback mechanisms in their models are oriented, and why they're so inaccurate. Many of the articles support various percentages below %, Scafetta's for instance argued that 40-70% was due to anthropogenic causes. Another, Nir Shaviv from Hebrew University was cited as having also supporting the consensus opinion, which doesn't even claim that AGW is the cause of climate change, but provides data which shows that cosmic rays have affected the climate. He claims that the affect of cosmic rays has occurred but is minor, and the evidence points to increased solar activity. Yet, Cook still put his article in with the 97%. Nils-Axel Mörner from Stockholm University, had a paper classified as "consensus" by Cook, but which in fact has "no position," and provides data that disproves the IPCC predictions on sea level data. Willie Soon, who was funded by oil companies, was listed as agreeing with the consensus, when, as I previously mentioned, his paper posits no position. Not to mention the fact that John Cook's graph allows applicants to endorse their view with the following categories: "Methods, mitigation, not climate related, not my paper, not-peer-reviewed." Yet, his graphic claims that this is "the scientific agreement," when no reputable scientist would accept a non-peer-reviewed paper as being scientific. This only goes to emphasise that the most important part of using polls to evaluate whether consensus exists, is methodology and presentation - if these aren't clear, then the stats are useless. This is why activists shouldn't be relied upon to make polls.

Moreover, Cook's question is an order of magnitude larger than the IPCC AGW position, which was whether humans have caused "some" global warming. When you have such a largely minimalist question, and then claim that all these papers support the AGW case, you end up with a manufactured consensus. The techniques used to identify consensus always focus on issues which are irrelevant to the central issues of the theory of AGW. We have to remember, there are multiple theories of AGW, there are multiple theories against it, and there are dozens of models both for and against - the IPCC use multiple data projections, and they have added new models. This means that the IPCC doesn't have a theory, they have multiple ones, so when one is arguing for AGW one has to make clear which model they support. Moreover, that should not distract from the central issues of the theory of AGW. Fundamentally, models and projections are not an explanation, they're a prediction which makes or breaks the explanation. The fundamental and central issues are the explanation: that 90-100% of global warming in the past few centuries is due to human activity. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by Cook explicitly stated that humans caused without a doubt most of the warming since 1950, which is 0.3% endorsement. Not to mention the fact that 8000 other papers were excluded because they expressed no opinion for or against AGW. The real numbers are these: 66.4% of respondents expressed no definitive position, the 97.1% are only of those that did express a position, meaning that's only 97.1% of 33.6%: i.e. only 32.6% of scientists surveyed expressed an opinion that humans bear "SOME" responsibility for global warming. Those that actually supported the IPCC position, are only 0.1008% of scientists. So, this is really an ongoing debate. 69.3% of scientists still need to be convinced one way or another. That is, if you want to argue statistics. I don't really like to play that game, since it's distracting to the real issue. The way to really determine consensus is whether or not a theory is controversial or not any more - that's when the theory has been accepted as fact, and starts being inserted into hypotheses (see Kuhn on this one). As for AGW, it is still controversial, otherwise we wouldn't be having a debate. Conclusions are always the most fun part of science, because it's where the debate happens.

As for the media, it's central to the issue. AGW isn't like regular science, because it's immensely politicised and activist oriented. You don't see this with plate tectonics debates. How you interpret and understand the way the media works, and how the public decide what presentation is convincing or not convincing is really crucial.

And as for you name, yes I suspected you might be a male. Kim isn't as popular as a male name around here, but I did know that it is more so in Australia. Of course the female is usually short for Kimberly , and I think the male is influenced by the Kipling poem. Sorry about that.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:23 am

Zhen Li wrote:RE: Malcolm
Women and Gender Studies is a different topic altogether (and I didn't even mention children so I don't know why you brought that up).


You cannot mention women without mentioning children.

Libertarians in the US want to wind back the government to adherence to the constitution of 1789.


And what a fricking nightmare that would be. It shows their total ignorance of the Constitution and its function.



This is actually quite incorrect. The US spends $1.042 Billion under the EPA for the promotion of climate change, and the government issued billions more in loans for renewable energy corporations with the justification of anthropogenic global warming, the most famous of which was the $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to Solyndra.


Conservative estimates place subsidies of the oil interest around 10 billion dollars a year. So, the US Government spends one dollar to prevent global warming for every nine it spends promoting the very industries that are propelling climate change.


I really don't think you can call opposition to AGW a cult, because there's no end goal like there is in AGW, and it comes almost entirely from individual scientists, rather than activist groups.


This is total nonsense.

Right now, you can't deny AGW and get elected,


Are you dreaming? People run on this platform in conservative parts of the US all the time and reelected again and again. If you look at the polls, if you are a Republican, you don't accept AGW. If you are a Democrat, you do. In the US this issue is completely split down party lines, unlike in other nations where conservatives tend to be more sane.


Even Tony Abbott believes in AGW.


If he were an American Conservative, he could not get elected if he stated he accepted AGW.

You see, the trend over history is that progressive causes always win.


You only think this because you do not live in the US.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11738
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:58 am

You cannot mention women without mentioning children.

That's funny! You were born old? I thought only Lao Tzu was born old.

For the rest of us, you can mention men and women without mentioning children, and you can mention men and women with children too. Duh... But this is a different thread for a different day. Let's leave it there.
Conservative estimates place subsidies of the oil interest around 10 billion dollars a year. So, the US Government spends one dollar to prevent global warming for every nine it spends promoting the very industries that are propelling climate change.

How subsidies work are often more complex than just handing the money to an oil company. Often subsidies are given to consumers directly - and statistically this counts as a subsidy for oil companies if they have a role in production of the population's energy supply. For instance, in the winter we receive cheques to help offset the costs of gas. So, this is another question of statistics. Also, don't make a straw man out of this, I don't believe current energy policies are good practices.

It is also a nice red herring, because the point is that the US Government doesn't ignore global warming - it acts in the belief that it exists. Regardless of how much.

It's also a strawman because it assumes that I am arguing about magnitude, I am not arguing about magnitude, I am arguing about existence. The funding exists, the phenomenon is recognised by this entity known as US Incorporated.
Are you dreaming? People run on this platform in conservative parts of the US all the time and reelected again and again. If you look at the polls, if you are a Republican, you don't accept AGW. If you are a Democrat, you do. In the US this issue is completely split down party lines, unlike in other nations where conservatives tend to be more sane.

These two are believers, and were elected as governors. Since you made a universal claim, it's refuted by a particular contradiction.
John Huntsman, — Twitter, Aug. 18, 2011 wrote:I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

Mitt Romney, — Reuters, June 3, 2011 wrote:I don't speak for the scientific community, of course. But I believe the world's getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that ... so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.

You only think this because you do not live in the US.

This is a matter which has a very broad and extensive answer on which will require a book length treatment. I can't address it here without starting a different topic, but most of the evidence I have compiled for my argument is from US history.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:02 am

Here's a really easy way for US citizens to speak up: http://climaterealityproject.org/social-cost-of-carbon/
It's from the Climate Reality Project.

:jedi:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:12 am

Malcolm wrote:
? wrote:Even Tony Abbott believes in AGW.


That's very doubtful, unfortunately. He has occasionally said that he does (I think he says he because even he knows that the majority of the Aussie electorate reckon that anyone denying it is too dumb to tie his own shoelaces, let alone run the country, but I could be wrong) but his whole legislative programme says otherwise.
Almost the first thing he did was demolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation - even though it was making money for the government out of investing in renewables!
Since then he and his henchmen have weakened every environmental protection law they can get their hands on and approved every mining project put before them.

Abbott and his government are new on the scene but are trying really hard to catch up to Harper and his lot in Canada.
:tantrum: :guns: :jedi: :crazy: :techproblem: :shock: etc.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:16 am

Zhen Li wrote:
John Huntsman, — Twitter, Aug. 18, 2011 wrote:I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.



Huntsman said this during his run in the primaries, knowing full well that these two issues go against the general grain of current Republican sentiment in the bat shit crazy bible belt states.


Romney, Oct 27th, 2011:

"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."


Seems like he changed his mind between june and october of the same year...
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11738
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:05 am

Well, sorry but you both are arguing against a straw man.

Tony Abbott admitted to believing in AGW, period. I never mentioned his policies.

And as for Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, they are particular contradictions to the universal claim, which renders it invalid. That's all my claim extends to. It has nothing to do with how their views evolved. It is unnecessary, but a cursory Google search can yield more results, e.g.: Arnie, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chris Smith, Tim Pawlenty, and Sarah Palin.

Anyway, you're both side stepping the central points of my argument.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:36 am

Zhen Li wrote:Tony Abbott admitted to believing in AGW, period. I never mentioned his policies.

In just the same way, you admit to not believing in AGW. Does that mean you actually don't not believe in AGW?

:stirthepot:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:32 am

If you mean, do I support green policies in spite of not believing in AGW?

Yes, I believe that different forms of energy are better than the ones we depend on now (though where I live it's already majority non-carbon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electricity_policy). And I do believe that there are lots of environmental problems with oil extraction - plus political and economic ones. Mostly, I do believe we don't yet have any satisfactory energy supply - though thorium shows promise. This is verging into the peak oil thread topic.

Where I differ is that I don't believe in treating CO2 as a problem. Air pollution (which CO2 is not) is a problem, it makes people an animals sick, and causes abnormal weather. I do believe that damaging natural habitats and ecosystems is a problem -- my solutions would address specific practical issues that make beings suffer. And economically, having a more healthy environment also means more valuable real estate - no one wants to live on the banks of the Yellow River these days unless they have to. If all of the AGW activists shifted their energy to these non-controversial issues, then we'd probably get much more progress in terms of reducing suffering. It doesn't matter if AGW is true or not, the AGW activist's solutions won't solve it - under all models we would be doomed. It's ironic that despite the fact that under all models there'll be no civilization in a century to produce CO2, they still claim that we have to act on the issue... strange.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby tatpurusa » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:39 am

dharmagoat wrote:
tatpurusa wrote:Just see what has been written in the last 10-15 years about Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, war on terror, humanitarian spreading of democracy, humanitarian bombing, surgical bombing, etc. etc. etc.

I really can't see how the reporting of war and political unrest compares to the reporting of climate study. I always considered the latter a peaceful pursuit.


The logic is easy. If they lie systematically about politics, for what reason should one believe that they tell the truth about everything
or anything else?
Even more so, because climate change is a highly politicised issue.

Just a concrete example I was following: When Fukushima happened, the first to report it was rt.com .
The next day, reporting in the mainstream media followed, still in a fairly objective way.

Two days later, there was a brief report on rt.com about the US sending a team to help TEPCO . The team was made of experts on "information management".

Within one day all information vanished from the Western mainstrem media pointing to the real dangers of the situation.
Immediately, according to them the situation was under control, and not even remotely comparable to the gravity of Tchernobyl.
It took more than a year till they officially recognised that it was comparable in gravity to Tchernobyl.
The sad truth is, that in reality it is a much more dangerous situation than Tchernobyl ever was.

Please forgive me for going off-topic, but the relevance of this example is in showing how nowdays information from the Western mainstream media is untrustable.
It takes just one team of "information management" experts, and ALL of them changes reporting AT ONCE.
So how could we trust them on other themes?
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:59 am

tatpurusa wrote:So how could we trust them on other themes?

The alternative is to find the information for ourselves from reputable scientific publications such as Scientific American, etc.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:46 am

Zhen Li wrote:If you mean, do I support green policies in spite of not believing in AGW?

That was pretty clearly not what I meant. Never mind ... at least you finally came out with a belief statement:
Zhen Li wrote:... I believe that different forms of energy are better than the ones we depend on now (though where I live it's already majority non-carbon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electricity_policy). And I do believe that there are lots of environmental problems with oil extraction - plus political and economic ones. Mostly, I do believe we don't yet have any satisfactory energy supply - though thorium shows promise. This is verging into the peak oil thread topic.

Where I differ is that I don't believe in treating CO2 as a problem. Air pollution (which CO2 is not) is a problem, it makes people an animals sick, and causes abnormal weather. I do believe that damaging natural habitats and ecosystems is a problem

So far, so good - well, at least it's clear.

Zhen Li wrote:my solutions would address specific practical issues that make beings suffer.

We haven't actually seen or heard any of them yet.
Zhen Li wrote:And economically, having a more healthy environment also means more valuable real estate - no one wants to live on the banks of the Yellow River these days unless they have to.

Fair enough.
Zhen Li wrote:If all of the AGW activists shifted their energy to these non-controversial issues, then we'd probably get much more progress in terms of reducing suffering. It doesn't matter if AGW is true or not, the AGW activist's solutions won't solve it - under all models we would be doomed. It's ironic that despite the fact that under all models there'll be no civilization in a century to produce CO2, they still claim that we have to act on the issue... strange.

I agree that we have multiple concurrent problems and that tackling others would (also) reduce suffering.

It looks like we disagree on very little except that human-produced CO2 is driving global warming ... admittedly a very big "except", since global warming, if unchecked, will lead to more suffering than any other single cause. (That, in fact, is why I am here in this thread.)
However, the phrase I have bolded is troubling me. Where did you get the idea that AGW activists believe that we are doomed whatever we do?
Most of us, in fact would say that there will be negative effects whatever we do (and we’re seeing them already) but that we can still do a lot to ameliorate them.
(Again, that’s why I’m here.)

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:02 am

Basically, there is hope right up until the point everyone turns a blind eye.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby smcj » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:10 am

Where did you get the idea that AGW activists believe that we are doomed whatever we do?

What's the worst that could happen? 150 years from now the world population could be a fraction of what it is today. During the intervening chaos we enter a Dark Age like after the fall of Rome. The accomplishments of the industrial revolution are forgotten, and the survivors are back to hunter-gatherers. Some nations have been wiped out completely, other find new opportunities. Hey, the Sahara may even get some rain. You know there's going to be a silver lining somewhere!
:stirthepot:
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:13 am

smcj wrote:
Where did you get the idea that AGW activists believe that we are doomed whatever we do?

What's the worst that could happen? 150 years from now the world population could be a fraction of what it is today. During the intervening chaos we enter a Dark Age like after the fall of Rome. The accomplishments of the industrial revolution are forgotten, and the survivors are back to hunter-gatherers. Some nations have been wiped out completely, other find new opportunities. Hey, the Sahara may even get some rain. You know there's going to be a silver lining somewhere!
:stirthepot:

Hi, smcj,
I get the feeling Zhen Li thinks some of us believe that really could happen - must happen, in fact. I don't share that belief and I guess you don't either but it's hard to be sure who you are making fun of.

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby treehuggingoctopus » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:17 pm

smcj wrote:What's the worst that could happen? 150 years from now the world population could be a fraction of what it is today. During the intervening chaos we enter a Dark Age like after the fall of Rome. The accomplishments of the industrial revolution are forgotten, and the survivors are back to hunter-gatherers. Some nations have been wiped out completely


Well, if we just keep doing what we do and climate changes continue, 2164 may actually look even worse. These days we've got weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) more or less freely available to anyone who has a reasonably thick wallet and is in dire need. And the need, it's getting direr and direr with every day for all those societies ruined by climate change. Sooner or later, someone will get desperate enough, or hateful enough, to do a really ugly thing. And then there will be a retaliatory move, and then a reaction to that...
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:21 pm

This is a serious issue and we each need to do whatever we can. Future generations will thank us.

Kim in particular is doing an extremely good job of warning of the dangers while keeping hope afloat. We need more Kims!

The title of this thread is an unfortunate one. Perhaps we could change it to "Climate Change: What Can We Do?"

:group:
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby smcj » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:51 pm

Hi, smcj,
I get the feeling Zhen Li thinks some of us believe that really could happen - must happen, in fact. I don't share that belief and I guess you don't either but it's hard to be sure who you are making fun of.

I have troll impulses that I sometimes yield to. I just like to stir things up.

In this life I have learned repeatedly that reality feels absolutely no imperative to conform to my expectations. I've been proved wrong time and again about things great and small, both personal and civic. My expectations for the future mean nothing. With that as a disclaimer, I will now way I do think it possible that the world population 150 years from now will be significantly less than it is today. Whether through climate change, nuclear armageddon, economic collapse, pandemic, or whatever, there is a good chance that the herd will be thinned at some point. Mother Nature doesn't like an imbalance.

However I personally have a positive outlook on life. That is a gift from my dearly departed teacher. There is a rightness to life, and we can access it. So please do not think me unduly negative. Life is good, even if the herd ends up being thinned.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron
>