Nor did the alternative spirituality of new wave religions offer any long term or obvious benefits.

Perhaps you didn't delve all that deeply into New Age philosophy. It is considered that the long term role of humanity is to be custodians of the planet and therefore the biosphere. As a mystic I go further, such issues are the only viable purpose of humanity.

Perhaps you didn't delve all that deeply into New Age philosophy. — Punshhh

It’s not so much what my opinion of it is as it hasn’t really had a huge impact on the world at large. I haven’t seen evidence of it entering public institutions or having major cultural effects. I have nothing against, either.

To be fair the level of drought and fires is the result of lack of rain. — Brett

Gosh that’s clever. I wonder why no one here thought of that.

I think one of the problems is that when you hear that the earth’s temperature might warm by 2.5 degrees, a lot of people say ‘so what? Temperatures change by more than that every hour.’ They don’t realise the fundamental importance of what used to be called ‘the balance of nature’. — Wayfarer

The only thing you mention specifically in your post in relation to the fires is this comment on temperature changes. So it seems to suggest you connect the fires to temperatures. Maybe I read it wrong.

However, you do know, since much has been said of it, that a theory to count as scientific there must be a way to disprove it. — TheMadFool

OF COURSE. Global warming is based on the fact that pouring hundreds of billions of tons into the atmosphere will change the atmosphere and cause global temperatures to rise, drastically affecting the climate. That is 'the science of climate change'. Which part of this is 'philosophical'?? All the graphs, all the charts, and all the evidence, is in line with the predictions - actually, a lot worse than the predictions, it's happening faster than scientists thought (and hoped).

There are not 'two sides to the story', there are not 'significant numbers of scientists that disagree' - all of that is disinformation circulated by the fossil fuel industry and propagated by vested interests. I can't even be bothered arguing it, if I could, there are literally millions of pages of data. The one thing nobody has, is time.

Quite, philosophy etc is peripheral in our world. All that counts in terms of the direction we go forward in is capitalist profit (and by extension control) and political success (meaning the ability to get into office for a term). There is the small matter of public opinion and demand, but that is a slow burn and can be controlled and redirected by the other two forces.

Ditto.

We can't solve global warming because our masters are totally sold on the profit motive, surely?

As it happens, the evidence for global warming is not based just on a few decades of temperature trends. Geologists, 'ice'ologists, oceanographers, and various other specialties have been studying the past few million years for evidence of the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and climate. Take ice cores: What they find in very old ice are tiny bubbles of the then existing atmosphere. When the climate at the time is compared to the levels of CO2 in the ice, the correlation is strongly in favor of more CO2 = warmer climate. The same relationship is found in ocean floor mud, tree rings, cores of soils which go back thousands of years in time. Conversely, when CO2 levels are lower than average, the climate is cold. It isn't a correlation between CO2 and temperature: It's a causative relationship. CO2 absorbs and radiates solar energy more than other normal gases in the atmosphere. The more CO2, the hotter the climate.

In itself, global warming is neither a good nor a bad thing. At one time both ice caps had melted, and millions of years later, here we all are. The difference between past gyrations in climate (and there have been a few) is that they were slow. Plants and animals were able to adjust because they had many years in which to adapt to new conditions: Thousands of years, not 50 to 100 years.

That the climate should warm fast enough to melt the Arctic ice cap during a human lifetime, is unprecedented. That the average temperature should rise 2 or 3 degrees F in a human lifetime is unprecedented. That the 70% of the earth that is ocean has warmed up and become more acidic as a result of human activity in a one or two human lifetimes is astounding. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for jogging my memory. What you said above more or less sums up my knowledge on global warming. It seems I've made a glaring error but only if Wikipedia is correct: There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities.

If global warming is a fact and I suspect much of the research on it is done in the west, specifically the US, why has dear ol' Uncle Sam not taking the lead on the issue? If I recall correctly the US as recently as a few years ago pulled out of a climate accord. If the most well-informed of all nations behaves in such a callous manner what can we expect from other countries whose economic engines run on fossil fuel?

What could be a more pressing concern than global warming to the nation that the world considers its leader? I guess Trump's slogan, America First, says it all: according to the wikipedia entry, the countries that'll be affected most severely will be the underdeveloped ones and most industrialized nations will be able to ride out the storm fairly unscathed. I guess the "global" in global warming means Africa and Asia and not the US.

As a young millennial I'd have to say that the problem of climate change terrifies me greatly, but I do try to be optimistic about it (cause honestly I feel like we all have to be).

At this point, I have no faith in the abilities of government bodies alone to be able to tackle the issue properly. They've had decades to address the problem and very little to show for it, and when we currently have psychopaths like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Morrison in office, I don't feel like that's gonna change anytime soon.

So much as there will be positive developments I think it'll come primarily from technological breakthroughs in green energy and other technologies like carbon capture which will provide an economic reason for people to get off of fossil fuels or at the very least cut their emissions, cause apparently that's all that matters to people. We're not gonna see any real changes until that happens, and thankfully there have been some promising steps toward that direction. My only hope is that by the time we do adopt solar and wind as our primary energy sources that it won't be too late to stop the worst of climate change.

If global warming is a fact and I suspect much of the research on it is done in the west, specifically the US, why has dear ol' Uncle Sam not taking the lead on the issue? If I recall correctly the US as recently as a few years ago pulled out of a climate accord. If the most well-informed of all nations behaves in such a callous manner what can we expect from other countries whose economic engines run on fossil fuel? — TheMadFool

Just because the US is the country that produces alot of significant scientific breakthroughs doesn't mean that the US population, and the elected officials chosen by that population, are the most well informed.

Just because the US is the country that produces alot of significant scientific breakthroughs doesn't mean that the US population, and the elected officials chosen by that population, are the most well informed. — Mr Bee

I believe this is incorrect. Thanks to the media's propensity for sensationalism, climatologists have been making the headlines across almost all news networks over many years. Surely the apathy can't be because of being uninformed; ergo, there is a deliberate attempt to marginalize the issue and climatologists, instead of getting the warm reception they rightly deserve are given the cold shoulder. Ironic.

We can, not enough are prepared to make that effort.

Who do you mean when you say “ not enough” are prepared to make the effort and what is the effort required of them?

As a young millennial I'd have to say that the problem of climate change terrifies me greatly, — Mr Bee

What are you “terrified” of?

I think one of the problems is that when you hear that the earth’s temperature might warm by 2.5 degrees, a lot of people say ‘so what? Temperatures change by more than that every hour.’ They don’t realise the fundamental importance of what used to be called ‘the balance of nature’. — Wayfarer

Also such developments could affect the temperature conditions of the earths crust resulting in seismic and volcanic activity. — Punshhh

Volcanic activity can put a huge amount of ash into the atmosphere, lowering the atmosperic temperature significantly. Maybe the "balance" has not yet been lost and we've yet to see the swing back the other way.

I did suggest though that climate change may be that replacement. It offers a relationship with something bigger than ourselves, which is the planet, life and the universe. Climate change is a quasi religion that promises a better world, a closer, more meaningful relationship with the environment. It’s message and quest are beyond question; who would not think it imperative to save the world, who would not want to embrace such a beautiful existence?The future, once we overcome climate damage, is golden, Edenic, perfect in its balance between needs and resources, everyone happy, everyone taking only what they need, everyone giving and sharing. An end to capitalism, an end to greed, an end to poverty. — Brett

The human being, "man" in particular, has always had a fascination with the idea of exercising control over "nature", complete dominance. It's sort of a fantasy, which with the aid of science, has developed into an illusion, that we actually can have control over the natural world. In the past, the illusion has always been shattered when "the hand of God" strikes, Noah's flood for example. Replacing "God" with the more submissive "mother nature", is the first step from fantasy to illusion, or even delusion. The concept of "climate change" is another such step. We produce the science which shows that we have affected the climate to the extent of X degree, which validates the claim that we as humans can change the climate. Then we argue that such and such actions are needed to negate this affect, bringing the climate to a "normal" state, thereby propagating the illusion that we might exercise control over mother nature. This is well received by those with the urge to dominate.

Now, the problem is that since this is rightly described as an illusion, or even delusion, the people who see through this illusion have no desire to act on this premise, regardless of how dangerous the pollutants actually are. So the premise of this "climate change" movement is faulty, because it cannot get action from the people it needs to get action from. If instead, we address the various pollutants such as CO2, and describe exactly why the pollutant is harmful, and why emissions ought to be controlled, rather than launching into nebulous ideas about human beings having the power to change the climate, the movement would probably have more credibility.

Now, the problem is that since this is rightly described as an illusion, or even delusion, the people who see through this illusion have no desire to act on this premise, regardless of how dangerous the pollutants actually are. So the premise of this "climate change" movement is faulty, because it cannot get action from the people it needs to get action from. If instead, we address the various pollutants such as CO2, and describe exactly why the pollutant is harmful, and why emissions ought to be controlled, rather than launching into nebulous ideas about human beings having the power to change the climate, the movement would probably have more credibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well put.

Volcanic activity can put a huge amount of ash into the atmosphere, lowering the atmosperic temperature significantly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. Let's all pray for a super-volcano, then. Maybe Yellowstone. It might make a lot of North America uninhabitable for a century or so, but consider the upside!

and when we currently have psychopaths like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Morrison in office, I don't feel like that's gonna change anytime soon. — Mr Bee

I have to object to categorising Scott Morrison with those other two, even though I completely agree that the Australian government has no climate change policy whatever and deserve to be held to account for it. But in other respects, Morrison is not in the same dismal class as Trump and Bolsonaro (and I speak with some first-hand knowledge, as one of my sons is married to an American, the other a Brazilian :-) .

If the most well-informed of all nations behaves in such a callous manner what can we expect from other countries whose economic engines run on fossil fuel? — TheMadFool

cause apparently that's all that matters to people — Mr Bee

Just because the US is the country that produces alot of significant scientific breakthroughs doesn't mean that the US population, and the elected officials chosen by that population, are the most well informed. — Mr Bee

We can, not enough are prepared to make that effort. — xwyhzol

"The People" (you, me, and most others) are not in a position to effect the critical changes such as: very rapid cessation of fossil fuel use, crash program to implement wind and solar energy, immediate minimization of unnecessary production (like SUVs, private jets, McMansions, etc.), rapid transition from private auto to mass transit, and so on. The small percentage of the population who actually own the mines, oil wells, refineries, factories, and so on refuse to give up the source of their great wealth.

The American People didn't pull out of the Paris Accords, one idiot named Donald Trump did that, and he, moron, is doing many other very bad things as well.

Ironic — TheMadFool

Ironic; and utterly appalling.

"The People" (you, me, and most others) are not in a position to effect the critical changes — Bitter Crank

The small percentage of the population who actually own the mines, oil wells, refineries, factories, and so on refuse to give up the source of their great wealth. — Bitter Crank

The Australian voters elected a conservative part (The Liberals) in the recent elections. In choosing the Liberals they rejected the climate change policy of the opposition (Labour). So the people did have an effect, and it was a critical move, it just wasn’t the one people such as yourself would have wanted. Labour got only 1/3 of the popular vote. The voters most definitely had an effect.

That vote also made clear the stake and support that the voters had in the mines, the export of coal and coal fired power stations owned by a small percentage and did not wish to give up that source.

Volcanic activity can put a huge amount of ash into the atmosphere, lowering the atmosperic temperature significantly. Maybe the "balance" has not yet been lost and we've yet to see the swing back the other way.

Like the Deccan traps for example, which has been considered as a possible cause for the demise of the dinosaurs.

You are displaying your naivety here (or perhaps humour). Firstly to generate such a large effect it would require a large caldera to go off, like Yellow Stone for example, which would likely accelerate any climate change considerably with signifant pollution, not to mention large amounts of greenhouse gasses. The sun probably wouldn't shine for a decade. Secondly this would almost certainly result in the rapid acidification of the oceans to the extent that all ocean ecosystems would collapse. The acidification already caused by human pollution is reaching worrying levels. There would be mass ecosystem collapse on land as well and humanity would be at each other's throats.

Nice try at saying everything will be ok after all.

Where did you hear this? I don't know whether that's possible or not, and if so, how severe the seismic activity would be. But then, pumping water out of aquifers or pumping fracking crap into rocks has caused seismic activity -- not terrible yet, but still... I don't quite see a connection between ocean currents and volcanic activity. How would that work?

I didn't hear it anywhere in particular, I just thought it obvious. When I've looked into it, there is acknowledgement that changes in climate might affect seismic activity, but there isn't any research which gives any indication. There doesn't seem to be any understanding yet about most of the day to day activity in the earths crust.

In regard to ocean currents, I was thinking of a rapid change in ocean temperature in certain areas for example the Humbolt current, or the Gulf Stream. The Humbolt current is adjacent to a subduction zone.

Like the Deccan traps for example, which has been considered as a possible cause for the demise of the dinosaurs. — Punshhh

More recently in 1815, 13,000 ft volcanic Mount Tambora in Indonesia exploded, blasting away 12 cubic miles of rock, dust, and gas into the atmosphere. The blast was 10 x the power of Krakatoa in 1883. Tambora causes "the year without summer" in North America and parts of Europe. In Massachusetts, for instance, it snowed in June, July, and August (the warmest months of course) of 1816, and there was widespread crop failure followed by a period of famine (in the United States!) There were epidemics in Europe.

There is an interesting problem about the Yucatan meteorite strike, the possible cause of the demise of the Dinosaurs. First, they didn't all die that day, or in the years following. It took quite some time for the dinosaurs to disappear. Secondly, it didn't wipe out the winged dinosaur, the descendants of which are eating at your bird feeder. Third, it didn't wipe out the mammals. That's why we are here, feeding the birds. Ditto for the amphibians and fish.

Here is a picture of a site in North Dakota created on the same day as the Chicxulub strike. The tidal wave crossed the Caribbean and raced up the center of North America. Meanwhile, debris fell from the sky. It isn't very often that we can see a 66 million old event frozen in time on or about the same day.

The Deccan Traps are less familiar to me than Chicxulub.

This is quite interesting -- not something I have read about.

In choosing the Liberals they rejected the climate change policy of the opposition (Labour). — Brett

Not true. Voters rejected labor on many grounds but climate change hardly figured. (Might have been different had the vote been held now.) But the back-story was that the Liberals had dumped their own Prime Minister in August 2018 because his painstakingly-negotiated and extremely modest climate change policy proposal, the National Energy Guarantee, was torpedoed by the right of the party which again demonstrated its unswerving commitment to fossil fuel and utter contempt for science. Again. The Libs have destroyed energy and climate policy in Australia by politicising it, and will forever be held in opprobrium for that.

The Australian Labour Party actually succeeded in passing an emissions trading scheme in 2011, which overall would have worked as intended and at least provided a climate policy. The conservative troglodytes got back into power and torpedoed it, to their eternal disgrace, and since then climate and energy policy in Australia have been an international laughing stock. As a visiting expert recently remarked, Australia possesses abundant resources for both traditional and clean energy supplies yet has had among the most rapid increases of energy costs in the developed world.

It is true that Australia’s overall direct contribution to global greenhouse gas is around 1.5%, not counting the fact that we’re one of the biggest coal exporters. But the attitude of contempt for the science and unwillingness to face the inconvenient truth of global warming is what is at issue here.

Not true. Voters rejected labor on many grounds but climate change hardly figured. — Wayfarer

What ever your thoughts, and whatever the many grounds, the voters rejected them and their climate change policy.

“This has been called the climate change election, and with good reason: concern about the climate and environment has never been greater.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/12/the-climate-change-election-where-do-the-parties-stand-on-the-environment).

Secondly, it didn't wipe out the winged dinosaur, the descendants of which are eating at your bird feeder. — Bitter Crank

That reminds me, I've got to buy some dinosaur food.

What ever your thoughts, and whatever the many grounds, the voters rejected them and their climate change policy. — Brett

More fool them.

Increased temperatures, increased flooding, mass migration from sea level rise, increased droughts, more extreme weather events, water shortages, etc. You know, the things that scientists have been warning about for years but older generations couldn't be bothered to care about.