A quick reminder that shareholders are not the owners of the corporation.

I cannot agree that thinking is either physically confined within the brain or directly observable in time as an activity. These are probabilistic conclusions at best - a reductionist account. — Possibility

There’s nothing probabilistic or reductionist about it: thinking either occurs in time or it doesn’t.

You can also observe your own thoughts. You can observe your feelings, too. These are actual phenomena,

Again — what is the alternative besides magic?

what we name ‘thinking’ is evidence of thinking, based on perceived potentiality. — Possibility

“Perceived potentiality” doesn’t mean much to me. What we label “speech” is evidence of speaking, too. That we do that in our heads sometimes without making noise doesn’t strike me as requiring becoming spooky.

I guess I really don’t see your point.

Travels with Charley, John Steinbeck

For the second time.

So Trump can now declassify documents with the power of his very-stable-genius brain.

What are the odds that his defenders are engaging in elaborate satire?

First I think it's fair to point out that science is not a `thing,' it's the result of the work and study of individual human beings. — Xtrix

Why is science not a "thing"? Of course it's a thing. It's a human activity, yes. It's as much a thing as philosophy or art is a thing. It's just the name given for a certain kind of human activity.

So when you say science tries to corner the market on the definition of real do you mean it existed in Aristotle's science, Galileo's science, modern science? — Xtrix

It's not that science tries to corner the market, it's that science's ontology is essentially naturalism, a substance ontology. Perhaps many people claim science is the sole road to truth and "reality" -- that's undoubtedly true -- but science itself, as a human activity attempting to explain the world, assumes an idea about the world that attempts to explain it in terms of natural processes -- i.e., in terms of "nature." If it doesn't, it's not science. At least in my view.

In that respect, yes it existed from Aristotle onward -- all the ways its changed notwithstanding.

Thirdly, are you saying that, again, science tries to corner the market on the definition "real" for us back as far as the greeks, or is this a more recent development? — Xtrix

I'm saying science takes for granted that the world (and what's "real") is what's natural. Almost by definition. It assumes this. Anything "beyond" nature is considered supernatural and beyond science's understanding, and is usually (and rightly) met with skepticism.

Philosophy (and sometimes religion) isn't so restricted, however. In terms of ontology, which itself underlies science (natural philosophy), we can ask about beings in general -- and what "natural" beings are, what nature means, etc., and even inquire as to what being itself means. At the heart of this question is the nature of one being in particular, of course…the human being.

My view is that there is more to thinking than activity — Possibility

Speaking is always an activity: it occurs in time, or it doesn’t occur, and the difference is observable in time. — Possibility

Thinking occurs in time as well. Where do you think it takes place? Outside time?

Thinking takes place in the brain. It's a product of the human nervous system. It's not well defined, but it's certainly a human activity.

Unless of course it's magic. But I don't think it's worth discussing that possibility.

In my first encounter with ghost — dclements

There are no ghosts. There are no zombies. There are no goblins.

As with Ouija boards, how do you know whether they move on their own or not if you haven't even used them or seen other people try to use them? — dclements

I have used them and watched others use them. It’s long been a claim that they have magic powers.

They don’t.

it could be done through a subconscious act. — dclements

No, it can’t. It’s not plausible, it’s not possible, it’s not worth wasting time on.

Magic isn’t real. Sorry.

opened minded enough to realize that not all the things that associated with "magic" are really magic at all but perhaps are caused by some kind of physical phenomenon we have yet been able to identify and understand. — dclements

Yeah, and maybe Santa really does exist after all. Maybe there really is that teapot orbiting Mars. Maybe I can fly like Superman.

There’s equal evidence for all of it. Which is to say: none.

is factually incorrect by a significant margin. — 180 Proof

It isn’t. I quoted a snippet from the article, and I guess I can’t fault anyone for not reading it and taking my statement as a stand-alone— but the figure was from 2009, and is much more precise than simply looking at national emissions.

Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

I think this is likely any underestimate, but that’s another story.

The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. — I like sushi

It may very well be why we’re in the mess we’re in. Perhaps greed as well. I tried listing some concrete problems without focusing on causes, I guess. But if I included those, communication would certainly factor in.

The problem identified is net overconsumption of and/or by national populations as shares of the global population. Why even mention "individual consumption"? — 180 Proof

Populations consist of individuals. So even per capita statistics are misleading. General national statistics or global statistics are even more misleading.

Citing the US, China, and India is fine — they are indeed the largest emitters. But that’s not saying much — and if used to justify the position that overpopulation is a driving issue, especially so.

41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019). — 180 Proof

Yep.

Important to remember that the issue isn’t individual consumption, however. It’s true that rich individuals consume more than poor ones. Taylor Swift flies her private jet around a lot, etc.

If we compare her to Darren Woods— she’s probably produced more CO2, in terms of individual consumption. That alone should tell you the true story of what’s going on, and why talk about individual “carbon footprint” is mostly the creation of the fossil fuel industry itself.

The issue is power. Power of a handful of people in government and business. They make decisions of production that we all live with. That’s true for China, India, and the US.

The issue is not increasing human populations. Maybe that’ll be a problem one day. It’s not a problem today.

No. We're "addicted" to beliefs. — 180 Proof

I wouldn't put it that way. I don't see beliefs as something like speaking or thinking, which I see as activities and, thus, can be analyzed in terms of habits and addiction.

But as far as our beliefs remain fairly consistent and (usually) immovable, I see what you mean.

However little we know about thoughts, we can't help having them. — Manuel

Sure. I'm talking more about a specific kind of thinking, which I differentiate from the "default mode" type of thinking that occurs all the time.

I rather someone addicted to thought harming no-one, than someone addicted to action without measuring consequences. — Manuel

Certainly.

Yes, they make the decisions, but they make the decisions as the extended power of the people. — god must be atheist

No they don’t. Governments are bought by corporations, and corporations are not governed by “the people” — they’re undemocratic.

If the people really did not like those decisions, then they would vote a government that reversed those decisions. — god must be atheist

Please do some reading. This is embarrassingly naive.

So stop saying that the cause of the world's problems are resting on the decisions of a few people. — god must be atheist

I will not stop saying it, because unlike most of what you’ve written, it has the merit of being true.

Your knowing nothing about corporate power and influence isn’t grounds for abandoning a well-documented analysis— sorry.

Yes, you did. — god must be atheist

No, I didn’t.

Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

What I said was:

"A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions." — god must be atheist

Which is true. See above about government and business.

If you’re really hung up on whether it counts for ALL emissions..,then no, of course not. Exhaling creates CO2, if we want to be childish and count that. But I’m not interested in childish discussions.

So... tell me, if overpopulation does not cause the shortages of water, arable land and natural resources that humanity uses... then what causes them. — god must be atheist

Decisions by a handful of people in government and business.

Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

I didn’t once say that.

How is overpopulation an abstraction? People are real. Their numbers are real. Their increasing number is a fact. — god must be atheist

Yes. People are real, and their numbers are increasing. The concept of “overpopulation,” however, is a myth and an abstraction. This isn’t hard.

You come out with outrageously wrong opinions: facts are abstractions in your view, historical numbers change at your whimsy to support your (false) arguments, and you are caught on contradicting yourself. — god must be atheist

Except that none of that is true. The truth is simply that you haven’t read carefully enough and are, as usual, misunderstanding and fabricating.

Back to the point: overpopulation is a myth and an excuse to divert attention from the real culprit of environmental destruction.

Since you’re not big on reading articles, I’ll quote the article I mentioned:

It’s the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — “over-consumers” in rich countries can blame “over-breeders” in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Like with other subjects you don’t understand, a little research goes a long way.

Stop trying to figure things out from your armchair — you’re not good at it. Do some READING.

A hyperactive DMN (default mode network) is not conducive to well-being, I think, and the simple solution is to engage in activities that deactivate the DMN, such as meditation, long walks on the beach, dropping acid, or whatever. It helps to relax. — praxis

True. Our default mode is to be thinking in the sense of reverie and other types of non-philosophical thought. What I’m specifying here is philosophical thought, however.

Has what we call “philosophy” simply become another addiction? It often seems that way. And not the good kind either. Still, I think your suggestions apply equally to philosophical thought as to any thought.

Thinking is not just a kind of doing, any more than feeling is a kind of doing. — Possibility

Thinking is an activity that can (sometimes) be controlled. We’re “doing” something when we’re thinking. I mean it in this general sense. It’s not an action on par with running, but perhaps similar to speaking.

You seem to want to haul them back out for people who say there are witches — Srap Tasmaner

No, I’m saying those who say there are witches are deluded.

I’m not too interested in “nuance” when the claims are simply ridiculous. Witches, ghosts, demons, goblins, zombies, unicorns. Do we really need to be nuanced about these things?

I assume you mean by "small percentage of the world population" the highly civilized nations (HCN), to which millions flee, desperate to be admitted, for the promises of a better life. — jgill

Spare me clichés.

Millions flee to the countries that have systematically destroyed theirs, sure. No one doubts the US and other “highly civilized” countries are wealthy. They should be, having plundered the earth for centuries.

But no, I don’t just me the OECD countries. I mean exactly what I said: the wealthy and powerful class.

Were it not for the HCNs life would be barbaric with early deaths from disease and injuries. Look at the American Indians. — jgill

You’re right— I’m sure they’d thank us, too. Had we not brutally (“barbarically”) wiped out their civilizations. You know, us “highly civilized” types.

But if the laws of nature are in fact statistical — Srap Tasmaner

Gravity isn’t “statistical.” That things don’t move through walls, or move “on their own” through the power of the mind, shouldn’t be controversial.

People don’t fly like Superman, either. It’s not that it’s “statistically unlikely” — it’s that it’s impossible.

I see plenty of justification in this line.

Magical thinking is dangerous.

It is not only the carbon emissions that the overpopulation causes... arable land use, water use, depleting natural resources. — god must be atheist

“Overpopulation” doesn’t cause any of those things.

Overpopulation is an abstraction. Blaming the worlds problem on this abstraction is a useful ploy to divert from the reality — which is that the behavior of a small percentage of the world population is responsible for most problems.

B. is that 100% of the population is responsible for 100% of human-caused carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

No. This is completely wrong. A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions. Mainly the wealthiest and most powerful class of people, and multinational corporations.

Blaming the hundreds of millions of Africans — or lumping them in with everyone else, as if per capita emission averages don’t matter — is, again, a silly and destructive thing to do. Also happens to be shallow and incorrect.

Therefore I say, QED, that the biggest problem mankind faces is the trend of humans to propagate their numbers unchecked. — god must be atheist

And therefore I repeat, yet again, that this is complete rubbish.

Do you feel this shows that we’ve strayed from a more accurate portrayal of those terms? If not, I’m not sure what you’re point is, other than tracing the history of the words. — GLEN willows

The words help us see what's actually happening, and so it's important to understand them.

The point is this:

1) "Real" is a loaded term that usually is defined as anything that science says is real.
2) What is "science"? Science is natural philosophy. Its ontological underpinning is naturalism.
3) What is "nature"? The word comes from the Latin natura, which is a translation of the Greek phusis, which is also where we get "physics." What does phusis mean? For the earlier Greeks, it meant something like a blooming or emerging, and for the later Greeks (e.g., Aristotle), it starts to take on a meaning closer to ousia -- which gets translated often as substance.
4) "Nature" has its ontological roots in substance theory. Today we describe the material world of objects and use empirical means -- observation, experimentation, etc. -- to explain them. This is usually how science is characterized. Nature is matter, energy, and forces.

So in terms of what's real -- yes, I think it's an honorific term. All kinds of things are real. If we define what's real as what's scientific, or natural, then that itself has a long tradition associated with it. Why should substances be any more "real" than anything else?

I think we should learn a little something from the earlier Greeks: reality is this. It's what's happening in our awareness and, importantly, outside our awareness. It's what's present before us, but also what's absent.

Lots more to say about this but I'll leave it there.

one doesn't have require ANY proof if they are merely providing a potential possibility to be examined — dclements

So by this standard, we can invent any story we want. Maybe Santa Claus really exists in the north pole. Maybe Xarnex the galaxy god is responsible for all of your thoughts. Who knows?

Claims in science always require solid evidence and solid reasoning. It's never willy-nilly.

People who believe in psychics and astrology and all kinds of ridiculous stuff always make the same arguments. They either try to even the playing field by reducing everything -- including all science -- to mere speculation and opinion and "subjectivity" so that they can pretend that their views aren't ridiculous -- or else they persuade others into thinking their claims really are scientific in some fashion.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Sagan

Two principles to abide by. Also, keep in my Russell's teapot.

By expecting those who are trying to explained unknown phenomenon in ANY scientific field to provide an unreasonable amount of data you (or anyone else doing this) are in effect merely trying to maintain the current status quo in order to prevent people from being able to come forward with ideas to challenge that which is the accepted "truth". — dclements

Complete nonsense.

It's not an "unreasonable amount of data," it's evidence. Evidence that is comparable to the claim being made.

If something isn't well understood, we can speculate and hypothesize about it -- but always with sound reasoning and at least some evidence as support. If the claim is something like "aliens did it," or that magic has occurred, then that will require a lot of evidence indeed.

So yes, suspending the known laws of the universe and everything we currently understand about the world is quite a claim. Claims such as these require more than just blurry photographs, anecdotes, and other flimsy "data."

It's no wonder there's never a shred of evidence for these claims. The simple reason is because they're not true. James Randi made an entire career out of demonstrating this -- offering people $1 million if they could prove their abilities. Not once was it realized. There's some hilarious videos on YouTube showing it, as well. Worthwhile taking a look at those and imagining all of their duped followers and how much money these charlatans made over the years. Remember, too, that many convinced themselves that they really had these abilities.

what would you say about those of us who have ever seen something like a ghost, and/or been able to get am Ouija board or Psi wheel to move on it's own. — dclements

I'd say that it's far more likely you've had an auditory or visual hallucination. I hear the voice of my dead grandmother sometimes, in passing. I'm not lead to believe that therefore she's in the next room, or is haunting me from the grave.

True, perhaps the laws of physics suspended for you momentarily -- but I wouldn't take that possibility very seriously. If I said to you that I had a friend who claimed he could fly, would you take this seriously?

Ouija boards don't move on their own. I stopped believing in fairytales and magic when I was a child. I recommend you do as well.

QED, it is the overpopulation and not the economic forces that drive us to annihilation or to something near to it. — god must be atheist

Except that’s a myth.

It’s not overpopulation. When 7% of the global population are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions— I don’t think “overpopulation” is the problem.

Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat

It’s a nice story to tell ourselves. It once again absolves the behavior of the affluent and the powerful — which is the true driving force — of responsibility. But like most stories told by the capitalist class, it’s complete bullshit the moment you think about it more deeply.

It’s on par with that other great story told about climate change: “natural forces.” “There’s little we can do, because…it’s the sun. There’s little we can do about global problems because… it’s overpopulation.”

Complete rubbish.

Recent article in the New York Times. For those that take issue with the phrase “most important” or argue — ridiculously, in my view — that we cannot really prioritize problems because they’re all interconnected, this article better demonstrates what I’ve been driving at.

I quote it at length:

This principle is what some health researchers mean by the idea that there are social determinants of health — that effective long-term solutions for many medicalized problems require nonmedical — this is to say, political — means. We all readily acknowledge that for diseases like diabetes and hypertension — diseases with a very clear biological basis — an individual’s body is only part of the causal reality of the disease. Treating the root cause of the “epidemic” of diabetes effectively, for example, would happen at the level of serious infrastructural changes to the available diet and activity levels of a population, not by slinging medications or pouring funding into clinics that help people make better choices in supermarkets filled with unregulated, unhealthy food. You’ve got to stop the guy running over people with the car.

[…]

This doesn’t mean that all psychiatric symptoms are caused by stress, but it does mean that a whole lot of them almost certainly are. There is increasingly strong evidence for the idea that chronic elevation of stress hormones has downstream effects on the neural architecture of the brain’s cognitive and emotional circuits. The exact relationship between different types of stress and any given cluster of psychiatric symptoms remains unclear — why do some people react to stress by becoming depressed, while others become impulsive or enraged? — indicating that whatever causal mechanism exists is mediated by a variety of genetic and social conditions. But the implications of the research are very clear: When it comes to mental health, the best treatment for the biological conditions underlying many symptoms might be ensuring that more people can live less stressful lives.

And here is the core of the problem: Medicalizing mental health doesn’t work very well if your goal is to address the underlying cause of population-level increases in mental and emotional distress. It does, however, work really well if you’re trying to come up with a solution that everybody in power can agree on, so that the people in power can show they’re doing something about the problem. Unfortunately, the solution that everyone can agree on is not going to work.

Everyone agrees, for instance, that it would be good to reduce the high rate of diabetes plaguing the United States. But once we begin to de-medicalize it, diabetes starts to look like a biological problem arising from a vast swathe of political problems: transportation infrastructure that keeps people sedentary in cars, food insecurity that keeps a racialized underclass dependent on cheap and empty calories, the power of corporate lobbies to defang regulations, and so on. These are problems that people do not agree on how to solve, in part because some are materially benefiting from this state of affairs. This is to say, these are political problems, and solving them will mean taking on the groups of people who benefit from the status quo.

[…]

And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live.

Solving the mental health crisis, then, will require fighting for people to have secure access to infrastructure that buffers them from chronic stress: housing, food security, education, child care, job security, the right to organize for more humane workplaces and substantive action on the imminent climate apocalypse. — Dr. Danielle Carr

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/opinion/us-mental-health-politics.html

Here I think it’s clear: while climate change, for example, is existential— it is, ultimately, a symptom: a result of a political and economic decisions, motivated by greed. Capitalism, then, is indeed the “infrastructure” that needs to be undone.

Like if you discarded your priors about how nature worked, would you be able to conclude that supernatural claims are bogus methodologically rather than being inconsistent with well established theory? — fdrake

I think my conclusion would be the same. If I knew nothing about the laws of nature, an extraordinary claim would still need a lot of supporting evidence.

To bring it out of the clouds, I like to think of someone coming to me claiming they have a map to buried treasure. Nothing about this defies the laws of physics, but it’s an extraordinary claim. I think the same principle applies here too.

Not sure if that answers your question.

If an eyewitness account comes from someone you are inclined to consider trustworthy, unlikely to be mistaken, and with no reason to lie, that has to count for something. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think there's much lying involved. I'm sure people really believe in all kinds of supernatural, magical stuff. People believe in angels and demons and ghosts, for God's sakes. I'm sure it's all sincere.

That being said, I think the hypothetical trustworthy friend's account would mean exactly nothing to me -- if what's being claimed is that everything I or anyone else has ever known about the world is wrong and the laws of nature have been suspended. That person is simply delusional and wrong, whatever they thought they experienced. The principle still stands: an extraordinary claim (aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, angels, unicorns, Santa Claus, the teapot orbiting Mars) requires extraordinary evidence -- no matter who is claiming it.

I bet on reality every time over subjective experiences and supernatural claims.

Even recently the government acknowledged that not all unknown/unexplained aerial phenomenon are caused by something along the lines of confused pilots, pranksters, or swamp gas as there have been too many documented evens by either Airforce or Navy pilots who have seen/videoed such craft to be able to merely dismiss them. — dclements

I think they can and should be dismissed as utter nonsense, if what's claimed is that because something is unidentified or unexplained, it must be a sign of alien life, supernatural forces, or magic.

The reason for not believing in these claims is the same for everything else: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan was right. So there's no sense wasting time about it simply because we'd like to believe in it.

We experience death every night when going to sleep. Meditation and drugs can help with ego-death, as well.

No big mystery. We, the living, are concerned about it because we experience others never waking up again and it’s frightening — so we make up all these stories about it. But all we ever experience is what we experience in life, including what’s mentioned above — sleep being the most common. Take away dreaming and there you have it.

I agree with Twain.

I believe it is at least plausible a very small fraction of them could be real. — dclements

They aren’t.

Yes, everything we know about the world could be mistaken. But I think it’s obvious people want to believe in magic, and that delusion, trickery, and irrationality help fill that void.

That 33% of respondents said “yes” is embarrassing.

“There was an implicit conviction of a relationship between the cosmic, natural and human order”

Do you mean a physical connection, as in we’re all made of atoms, come from stars, etc or do you mean a psychological connection of some sort, ex. Panpsychism?. And are you saying this is what modern science is missing? — GLEN willows

I don’t recall making that statement. Could you link me to where you found it? I’ll be able to explain better if I remember the context. Thanks!

Sure. Love to hear more. — GLEN willows

Sorry I haven’t had much time lately. I made a post of what I’m driving at here a year or so ago: basis for modern science. Maybe you’ll find it interesting.

A clue is given from the word itself: "natural." And so "nature." This word comes from the Latin natura and was a translation of the Greek phusis.

It turns out that φῠ́σῐς (phusis) is the basis for "physical." So the idea of the physical world and the natural world are ultimately based on Greek and Latin concepts, respectively.

So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought.

The analysis of this concept is very important indeed to understand our current scientific conception of the world, and therefore the predominant world ontology (at least non-religious, or perhaps simply the de facto ontology ).

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? — spirit-salamander

An opinion shaped by sources like Lomborg and Alex Epstein and Koonin. All variations of climate denial.

So it is not the typical propaganda you are thinking of. — 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.

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? — 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.

I can only say one thing, which is that scientific consensus doesn't mean much. — 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.

Would you at least admit that an alarmist spirit among climate scientists might make their objectivity suffer somewhat? — 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.

It has an impact on weather, so the statement you posted,

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

is just wrong. It does affect the weather. — Tate

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.

The jury is still out, but the verdict is likely to be that there is no causal link between Earth’s magnetic field and our weather.

https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25433882-200-does-earths-magnetic-field-affect-the-weather/

This isn't true. — Tate

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.

Solar storms and their electromagnetic interactions only impact Earth’s ionosphere, which extends from the lowest edge of the mesosphere (about 31 miles or 50 kilometers above Earth’s surface) to space, around 600 miles (965 kilometers) above the surface. They have no impact on Earth’s troposphere or lower stratosphere, where Earth’s surface weather, and subsequently its climate, originate.

Here. From NASA.

From your cited article:

Although these strands of evidence are intriguing, they remain very controversial, while there is no clear mechanism to explain the relationship between magnetic field variations and climate variability.

I think the term “real” is the problem here.

If we want to define what’s real as what’s understood by science, or by empirical observations, that’s a choice. I wouldn’t do so myself.

It does well to keep in mind where science comes from and what its ontological underpinnings are. There’s a lot we can learn by remembering “natural philosophy” was once the name for what we now would call science.

Science assumes a naturalistic, if not a materialistic, worldview. So we might enquire about the word “nature” (and “material”) and go from there. That’s normally the line I take when having these discussions. We can get into that if it’s of interest to you. I’ve written about it elsewhere.

@Banno

Even the attitudes of Australian farmers, including some of the most entrenched sceptics, are shifting.

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.

Nicely put. — EricH

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap: — Tom Storm

succinct and adroit — 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.

I'm not seeing any climate denial here. — Yohan

Cool. I do.

Which 'climate' exactly are you suggesting is being denied? — Yohan

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.

@spirit-salamander

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:

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?

'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.' — 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):

'We should not be too complacent,' added Taylor. 'As temperatures rise, seas become less and less able to hold on to carbon dioxide. Soon they will absorb less of the gas and may eventually start to give it off. That will have a very serious impact on our planet.'

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.

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. — 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:

Some people have claimed that variations in Earth’s magnetic field are contributing to current global warming and can cause catastrophic climate change. However, the science doesn’t support that argument. In this blog, we’ll examine a number of proposed hypotheses regarding the effects of changes in Earth’s magnetic field on climate. We’ll also discuss physics-based reasons why changes in the magnetic field can’t impact climate.

Bottom line: There’s no evidence that Earth’s climate has been significantly impacted by the last three magnetic field excursions, nor by any excursion event within at least the last 2.8 million years.

Physical Principles
1. Insufficient Energy in Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Electromagnetic currents exist within Earth’s upper atmosphere. But the energy driving the climate system in the upper atmosphere is, on global average, a minute fraction of the energy that drives the climate system at Earth’s surface. Its magnitude is typically less than one to a few milliwatts per square meter. To put that into context, the energy budget at Earth’s surface is about 250 to 300 watts per square meter. In the long run, the energy that governs Earth’s upper atmosphere is about 100,000 times less than the amount of energy driving the climate system at Earth’s surface. There is simply not enough energy aloft to have an influence on climate down where we live.

2. Air Isn’t Ferrous

Finally, changes and shifts in Earth’s magnetic field polarity don’t impact weather and climate for a fundamental reason: air isn’t ferrous.

Ferrous means “containing or consisting of iron.” While iron in volcanic ash is transported in the atmosphere, and small quantities of iron and iron compounds generated by human activities are a source of air pollution in some urban areas, iron isn’t a significant component of Earth’s atmosphere. There’s no known physical mechanism capable of connecting weather conditions at Earth’s surface with electromagnetic currents in space.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

You seem to be saying that we already know a lot, or almost everything. — 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.

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? — 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.

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. — 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:

Turns out it’s more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere — after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun — versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth’s surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution — is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It’s not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/its-the-sun-stupid/

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

Maybe more CO₂ will make the world warmer — spirit-salamander

It does make the world warmer. There is no "maybe" involved.

Climate research depends mainly on modeling. But how can the models be meaningful if many factors cannot yet be properly assessed? — 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:

Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.
Arrhenius overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.
Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

So I pose that very question to you: what would you consider satisfactory evidence?
— 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. — spirit-salamander

That's not what I asked. You're dodging the question -- as expected.

Try again. What would you consider satisfactory evidence?

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. — 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.

Bjorn Lomborg.
— Xtrix

Then forget about Lomberg and co. They could all be idiots, although I don't think they give that impression. — 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.

Well then, do they accept partly that blame? — ssu

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

What would you then criticize the central banks for? — ssu

For being, as Karen Petrou calls it, the “engine of inequality.” They inflate assets. Who owns the assets? We know the answer.