my basic argument was already made here, — schopenhauer1

What is your argument though, that current usage is wrong because we need lots of words to uniquely ly describe the Holocaust? It's a very weak argument, given that genocide has an agreed definition in international law, and the unique term already exists for what the Nazis did. I describe how these terms are used; no one talks of "The Genocide". So you are simply wrong, the English speaking community including international bodies and common parlance do not follow your preferred usage. you don't get to dictate the language.

It does matter, because now you are making someone "defend a genocide" — schopenhauer1

I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said one cannot rule it out on principle, but one has to look at what is happening and what is being justified by what rhetoric. If a genocide is happening, then either one tries to defend it or one condemns it. One cannot look at some other event and claim that because the death toll was higher there, this event cannot be counted.

On this tendentious use of language.

The Nazi atrocity against the Jewish population has a unique name : the Holocaust. This term should not be used of other slaughters.

However, 'concentration camp' was used already of the internment carried out by Britain during the Boer War.

'Genocide' has been defined by international treaty, and legitimately used of events in various places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Myanmar.

So to the language police, "Do not exceed your remit!"

The idea of 'causation' presupposes time, because a cause is defined as prior to its effect, and causation is a temporal process.

Therefore, it makes no sense to posit a cause of time, as that would necessitate a time before time, which is a contradiction. The idea of causation has a field of application within the universe and cannot be applied beyond it as in a "cause of the universe".

Thus notions of 'a being' 'outside time and space' 'acting' to 'create' are all allegorical and cannot be taken literally. Events happen eventually in time, and events outside of time are ... hush, nothing can be said at all.

I have been a computer programmer for about 40 years. — Agree-to-Disagree

Then you know the difference between a chat bot and a climate model.

So you are blowing smoke like a well paid climate denier.

This is a level of disinformation that you really should be ashamed of, and if I were a moderrator I would be banning you for proselytising.

Thank you for your response. S↪unenlightened o what is this thing called "Free Will"?
Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. Still enslaved. — Piers

You were talking about freedom; now you are talking about free will.

Do you know what Ego is? Do you know what Conscience is? — Piers

I think they are ideas that come to dominate the mind. Ideas always function by division and opposition, and that is why one part of the mind looks at the other as other and calls it 'master' or 'slave'.

There is no freedom in thought, only this division, and no freedom in choice, which is just conflict, and no freedom in will, which is determination itself. But putting all that aside, in the silence of a mind that is alert and responsive there is freedom, because the division and conflict is ended.

That third challenge is hilarious. — Michael

Oh, that is sweet!

Here is a village local to me, where the sea defences are not going to be raised, and where one cannot get a mortgage. Over on the east coast of England, there are problems with coastal erosion, but this is sea level rise pure and simple. There are of course atolls and deltas already suffering devastation elsewhere, but it's somehow more real when it happens to decent civilised property owning people like us.

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/11/residents-defiant-as-village-set-to-be-abandoned-to-rising-sea-levels-15582361/

Sorry about that. It's frustrating dealing with the global scepticism at times.

I'm just making the point that ultimately I'm having to trust other people's word for it, and I'm increasingly seeing problems within academia that make me unwilling to extend that trust. — Tzeentch

Here is where i have a problem with trusting you and the honesty of your scepticism. When I look at the venality of academia, I see three possibilities.

First, a systematic distortion produced by vested interests with power and money is possible and has happened. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Guns, big Defence. There is no Big Wind, or Big Solar, so I discount that in this case, only the opposite distortion by Big Oil is remotely likely and the evidence of their activity is not hard to find and works to undermine and minimise, not to exaggerate.

Second, there is a natural tendency for any discipline to big itself up and make itself important. But geologists and climate scientists already have a massive market for their ideas and predictions in the commercial field, and are not making themselves popular with predictions of collapse. On the contrary, the more pessimistic predictors are losing their jobs.

Third, there is always a market on the internet for the odd maverick or contrarian feeding any conspiracy theory, or other special interest. But this of its nature cannot apply to the consensus of climate scientists.

So I am asking you for a proper justification of your scepticism in this case, rather than just innuendo. Who is distorting and why is it so widespread and systematic, and how is it profiting anyone?

Astronomy is complicated, hard to understand and based on indirect and estimated measurement, extrapolating from sparse evidence using complicated statistics. These are reasons to be cautious and flexible about its findings, but one does not hear accusations of grift about the big bang or cosmic inflation.

That seems right...ice absorbs less, and reflects more, heat than liquid water...the so-called "albedo effect: — Janus

That's a separate thing, though also significant. The latent heat thing is that you have to add some heat to ice at 0°C to turn it into water at 0°C, and that extra energy is called latent heat. It is the energy required to break the chemical bonds that form the crystalline structure of ice. The same thing happens with boiling water. You have to keep adding heat to turn the water into vapour, and the water doesn't get any hotter, it just vaporises. That's why the potatoes don't burn until the pot has boiled dry.

So all the time extra energy is melting ice, that energy isn't raising the temperature. And there's lots of ice to melt. So it's only just begun.

The albedo change is a positive feedback loop that produces one of the notorious 'tipping points'. As ice melts, the planet darkens and absorbs more heat. It is generally accepted that we are heading for an ice free N.pole in summer, in a few years rather than a few decades. And then the Greenland ice sheet is going to be exposed on all sides and looking vey lonesome.

Sea level rise may show up much more in low-lying areas for obvious reasons, but also it has to be taken into account that it is understood not to be uniform over the planet, so what you observe locally may indeed not exhibit the more radical changes being experienced elsewhere. — Janus

What mainly has to be taken into account is that so far it is mainly sea ice we have been losing, and sea ice loss doesn't raise sea levels unless the ice is well grounded. Most of the small rise so far has been due to the expansion of water with rise of temperature, and some glacier loss. But it's only just begun.

Greenland ice is going to take some time to melt, but it is almost certainly going to melt. Those interested in fake physics will foolishly believe that melting ice absorbs a great deal of heat because of the latent heat associated with a change of state. Those doom merchants will think that there is another reason why things have not quite gotten as bad as they might otherwise have. Latent heat is one of those things they used to propagandise us with in physics lessons back in the 60's.

It starts getting trustworthy when you can't get property insurance. Insurers won't take your money is reliable early warning of catastrophe.

Wall Street Journal. — Mikie

Grift central!

I just take note of typical grifty tactics, like narrative shifting, and as the list grows my trust shrinks. — Tzeentch

"Global warming" redirects here. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation) and Global warming (disambiguation). This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#References


Why not look into your confusions a bit before jumping for the nearest conspiracy theory?

What do you do? — tim wood

I cannot work out from your analogy whether I am an Israeli or a Palestinian, but whatever, those dogs better watch out, eh? Or are they vermin?

My kids used to be called 'Paki' because folk cannot tell the difference between Afro Caribbean and Pakistani. Not surprising then that some random Joe cannot distinguish Israeli from Jew. When carpet bombing the audience with hate speech, some collateral damage is unfortunately inevitable.

Thing is, from where I stand, it's not the category errors that are the problem, it's the hate. Palestinians are Semites too, but where is that in the racist/antiracist labelling scheme?

Here is the latest research on the CO2 roughly since the dinosaurs, still recent history in geological terms, but going back a lot further that the direct measurements of atmosphere bubbles in Ice cores, that stop at about 800,000 yrs.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177

The handy graph there shows estimates of atmospheric CO2 for the last 66,000,000 yrs. The current level is about 417 ppm, a 50 % increase from preindustrial levels and last seen some 16 million years ago. This is a change way beyond the cycles shown on the ice core graphs shown many times on this thread. 16M, years ago, there was no ice on Greenland, and sea levels and average temperatures were much higher, as I mentioned above.

But we are headed for higher temperatures than that, because the suddenness of the change is causing a mass extinction and disruption to the environment, and we haven't even begun to reduce the rate of CO2 we are adding.

i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money. — Merkwurdichliebe

Over 4.5 billion years there have been many influences on climate. Obit wobbles are one. vulcanism is another continental drift is another, and life is another, The moon has receded from Earth over time so that tides have lessened, asteroids have had strong brief influence, the sun cycles are also important.

Over geological time, the sun's output has increased, however the long term effect of living organisms has been to lock up CO2 in the form of carbonates - limestones and chalk, which are the remains of shelled critters and the like, and oil and coal, the remains of ancient buried vegetation. This stuff has accumulated over the billions of years, some of it being recycled through subduction and vulcanism, and a lot just sitting there buried under layers of sediment.

So the overall effect of life locking carbon into the earths crust, has been enough to negate the increase in insolation. More or less. As i said all these other stuff has been going on as well and I'm not running a full course on climatology here.

The particular human effect has been twofold; firstly by various methods of exploitation pollution, farming fishing etc, to disrupt the ongoing processes of CO2 absorption of the living environment, and secondly and much more significantly, by extracting carbon in the form of coal and oil, and releasing it back into the atmosphere. This has never happened before. It has happened on a huge scale in a very very short time by geological standards. Current CO2 levels are at a level last seen when there was no ice at the N. pole or Greenland, and sea levels were about 50 m. (160 ft) higher than current levels, and global temperatures about 6°C. higher.

We are spending the carbon savings of the planet over billions of years at the rate of about half of the planet's total in a century and a half. And that is why it is humans on this occasion that are having a huge effect on the climate.

Bruce Perry gets honourable mention in my old thread on trauma theory.

I agree with the general thrust of the op, but I caution that parents are not the sole source of trauma. there are many links in my thread if anyone wants to educate themselves on their own trauma score, or on the general theory. And everyone should try and educate themselves, because we all educate and influence children through our participation in society. Here is one quote from the end of my thread that has to be important and has not been considered here thus far.

When children are truly free to walk away from school, then schools will have to become child-friendly places in order to survive. Children love to learn, but, like all of us, they hate to be coerced, micromanaged, and continuously judged. They love to learn in their own ways, not in ways that others force on them. Schools, like all institutions, will become moral institutions only when the people they serve are no longer inmates. When students are free to quit, schools will have to grant them other basic human rights, such as the right to have a voice in decisions that affect them, the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and the right to choose their own paths to happiness.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201304/the-most-basic-freedom-is-freedom-quit?fbclid=IwAR3g1JEFem_0ICV5TrWPSwMPpZHZl7cYLESq2w0P-Kvl7a-HAVTnLZloTMw

Here's a simple principle to reduce trauma in schools and other institutions.

Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels). — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah life is a risky game. I wouldn't play it if I had the choice.

But your suggestion seems to be to ignore the best prediction we have and all the evidence we have, in favour of some unimagined factor that will work in our favour rather than making things even worse. I call that wishful thinking.

You are ruining your life worrying about something that might never happen. Even if it happens it will be long after you are dead. — Agree-to-Disagree

No I'm not. I am not worried. I will be dead, indeed before very long, but I do not make my life a misery by imagining that my life has any great importance. That would be rather foolish considering how very fragile and impermanent an individual human is.

Prediction is indeed difficult, but if scientists were to predict with increasing certainty over some time that a large asteroid was going to hit your state and nothing could be done now because it was too late to divert it, you might be inclined to take a holiday somewhere far away, rather than arguing with complex calculations.

I am giving you my best guess based on the consensus of model predictions augmented by proposed explanations of why these models have proved so far to be underestimating the effects of climate disruption.

Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. — Michael Crichton

Of course. Yet every purposeful act is future directed and functions in exactly that way. In crossing the road, one waits for a gap in the traffic and hopes there is not an invisible car there. One eats a burger and relies on the fact that so far one's burgers have not been too poisonous. Everybody who gives it a moment's thought knows that predictions are the best one can do in preparing for the future, and that though the weather forecast is sometimes badly, wrong, and always wrong to some degree, it is still worth attending to, and preparing for.

One cannot be both his own slave and his own master. — NOS4A2

Au contraire, one cannot be his own slave without at the same time being his own master. A slave must have a master.

I guess my point, if there is one, is that most of us are a result of imperialist empires such as Roman, Greek, British, German, Ottoman, Byzantine, Mongol, and countless others. These empires took over large quantities of resources, killed and dispersed large quantities of people, and in many cases – Roman in particular – found themselves upon narratives of deceit and betrayal. The people who survived during these times were less the ones that were un-paranoid, non-aggressive, and fully altruistic. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to suddenly be in 'happy bunny hour' all holding hands. — kudos

Yes. We are probably more chimp than bonobo, and on top of that we inherit trauma from the traumatised of the previous generation. And as I have already said and others have also attested, it is a difficult process just to come to terms with the personal and cultural loss we are facing. And of course I sound like some modern Jeremiah because on a smaller scale, societies have had to face such calamities many times, and folk have each time divided between the doom merchants and the sceptics.

I am not expecting much happiness.

I am expecting over the next couple of centuries a sea level rise of 10 - 50 metres submerging most of the major cities and a huge percentage of the world's arable land. Add in the mass extinction caused by a climate change too rapid for environments to adapt, and the usual human instinct to blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems, and happy bunnies are going to be thin on what's left of the ground.

Denial is a normal psychological response - 'The Titanic is unsinkable, tell the band to keep playing.' One might hope that philosophers were in a position more to face reality, and start to think about the most meaningful way to respond to the situation. But here it seems that name calling and ridicule is about all they can manage. *shrug*.

But happy Christmas everyone.

If you can explain please, I'll consider. What death betrayal and theft?

If you say so.

↪unenlightened None of that has anything to do with what I said, though. — Tzeentch

So calling people grifters is not taking the moral high ground? Literally, you will make any idiotic accusation not to engage with the rather serious threat to your own way of life. So it goes.

I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the skepticism expressed in this thread at all. — Tzeentch

Of course you don't. But if you look, you will find that climate science has been accused of "grift" of regiousity, of ... oh never mind, I cannot be bothered with fending off your projections any more.

We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years. — frank

That's not entirely true. By and large, democratic governments cannot afford to look very seriously beyond the next election, but not everything is democratically controlled. The notion of aristocracy, on the other hand, unfashionable as it is, does rely on long-termism. Noblesse oblige. Thus in medieval times, multi generational projects like the construction of cathedrals were possible. The sense of lineage gives one a longer view that allows one to plant broadleaf woodland that will come to maturity in a couple of centuries, because there is a genuine feeling that one is not the owner, but the custodian of one's property. This might make sense to a Native American sensibility, but I suspect is entirely foreign to US culture.

That would be a stronger argument if it were not the sceptics that framed it that way.

"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?" — kudos

"Why should I?" is the devil's question. If someone doesn't care about other people, they don't care what other people say. So there is no answer worth giving.

Humanity as a whole stands in judgement of itself, and it looks like our judgement is that we might as well die in our own shit. So it goes. I am rather sad about this, to the extent that I sometimes hide it in anger. Both equally futile reactions.

But I do wonder, if people really don't care about others, why they bother to come here and argue about all this, back and forth? It's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that they don't care, rather than just berate those of us that do care a little.

If it's true.

Silly question. Besides generational migration to space habitats, thinning the human herd is much easier and more efficient. — 180 Proof

People like to have children, and like to have a bit of room, so it's a bit silly is to imagine an end to all shortage and limitation. Perhaps we will start building ring worlds?

When are the robots going to start making more land?

I would appreciate a refutation — Piers

everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience. — Piers

No they ain't.

Thinking can stop. In the silence of the mind is the freedom to respond, and in that responsibility is the creative freedom of the artist.

How can they expect to communicate effectively with others if they don't know the standard, common, agreed upon definitions/meanings of terms (with all their variations depending on context ) or if they have their own, personal, different definitions/meanings according to their own views and reality?
One can always of course describe one's own definition/meaning of a term --nothing bad about it-- but at least they should make that clear if that definition/meaning departs from the standard, common, agreed upon definition and meaning. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

I am going to answer this question, or pair of related questions, without recourse to a dictionary, by way, in part, of illustrating that communication is possible without recourse to dictionaries. Indeed it must necessarily be the case that the meanings of words were already established and communicated before the first dictionary was created to record them. My answer will also give an answer in passing to your first question.

Fortunately, language has a large measure of redundancy, such that even if *unreadable splodge*, the meaning can very often be discerned quite easily. This means that an unfamiliar word can be guessed at from its context, and by triangulation with another occurrence in another context, a fairly clear idea can be obtained as to the meaning. And this method of providing uses in context is very often part of a good dictionary entry.

Because "meaning is use". Now a dictionary uses words, to define each word, and one has to understand the words in the definition to grasp the meaning of the word in question. So there is always more work to be done if one is sufficiently insistent, until as must happen, one finds that the dictionary itself loops around and the definitions become circular. At which point one has have recourse to familiarity with the language as used informally anyway. One does not learn to talk in the first place at least, from a dictionary, but from social interaction.

None of this is to denigrate dictionaries, they are fun and useful in equal measure. And if you want to reference one now and then, it can sometimes circumvent a deal of wrangling in philosophical discussion. But in my experience, it is the little common words like "I" and "is" and "thing", and "meaning" that no one defines or bothers to look up, that cause all the big philosophical problems, and here is exactly where a dictionary definition is no help at all.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/tbt-clinton-grand-jury-testimony/index.html

Mind you, if you want to really disappear down a rabbit hole of definitional circularity, I can recommend the classic text, The Meaning of Meaning. by Ogden and Richards, They find about 16 different uses of the term "meaning" by reputable philosophers, and discount a few more as illegitimate - as in 'the meaning of life', for example. I mean, why be satisfied with dictionary.com, when you can have a book length discussion of a word?

I prefer to start at the other end, and set a lower limit on the wealth of the least wealthy. and that limit would be sufficient to be fed, clothed and housed according to the acceptable standards of the society such as is conducive to good health, and further enabled to participate in and contribute to that society. Only after that, if you need a 40 ft yacht and the resources are available, will I merely pity your psychological inadequacy.

I remember when this was modern. All part of my indoctrination.

There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification. — frank

That has little to do with inhaled or ingested plastics that are liable I imagine to clog things up and reduce absorption of oxygen and food respectively. but there's not a huge amount of research and a good deal of complacency. Just another uncontrolled experiment with the biosphere.

here's a summary: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/microplastics-long-legacy-left-behind-plastic-pollution

It's another unwanted pressure on an already critically stressed biosphere - not to mention the hormones that are an ever-present threat to the masculinity of the pure in cell.

I don't accept — Lionino

What are you denying about Dr John Christy? That the research has been widely questioned? That it is a minority view among climate scientists? That ExonMobil lobbied on his behalf? That he used to be a missionary? Your blanket rejection is of no value without some reason and evidence.

We know for a fact that the tobacco industry worked very hard to hold back the science on the extent to which smoking was lethal.
We know that the oil industry has been doing the same thing over climate change.

Yet here is a bunch of clowns pretending that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists and windmill manufacturers. They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. And I am the one that is

...into too many layers of irony for me to understand. — Lionino

Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download — Lionino

Yeah, No grifting involved at all there.

In 2001, ExxonMobil’s chief lobbyist successfully recommended that President George W. Bush’s administration choose Christy to review the submissions of the U.S. team contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report, an assignment that helped burnish his scientific credentials.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112020/john-christy-alabama-climate-contrarian/

Exon Mobil lobbyists being unwavering seekers of truth and not at all partisan on such matters. He doesn't take their money, but he sure takes their lobbying on his behalf. but the reference has been very well trashed in any case over the years.