A great number of people are framed as ‘Climate Change Deniers’ when in fact they do not deny that the climate is changing, nor that humans have an effect on the climate, but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. This is a reasonable position to have. — I like sushi
Can we be absolutely sure that we are primarily changing the climate? — spirit-salamander
Perhaps there is even no reason to panic at all, as some scientists, who seem objective to me, think: “Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial.” (Matt Ridley) — spirit-salamander
But the chance that the train has already left seems very high to me, assuming that we are responsible for the mess. But why should 2030 be the point of no return? — spirit-salamander
Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything. — Xtrix
Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is. — Xtrix
No one is saying 2030 is the point of no return. — Xtrix
No it is not. To question the possible effects of a changing climate is reasonable. — I like sushi
but they do question the extent of the impact humans have. — I like sushi
Like I said, a great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale who talk about human extinction. The kind of folks pushing for all kinds of policies that result in destructions of environments and poverty. — I like sushi
Why is that so hard to grasp? I am not saying there are not people who outright deny the human effect on climate change but THEY are quite ignorant. Questioning the impact our actions will have and have had is not denial. — I like sushi
Yes. We can be as sure of it as we are of anything.
— Xtrix
No, climate is an extremely complex thing and not like anything. — spirit-salamander
Tell people in Pakistan and California how beneficial it is.
— Xtrix
That is not a substantial response. I might say severe droughts have always existed. And natural catastrophes too. How do you know that there are many more now? This could be a distortion of perception. — spirit-salamander
Your whole response is unphilosophical. — spirit-salamander
Boiling water is a complex thing too. It's fairly well understood though. — Xtrix
Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance. — Xtrix
Makes sense, since this isn't a philosophical matter. This is a matter of science and, in your case, ignorance. — Xtrix
We know very little about the mechanisms and interactions between the Earth's spheres, such as the ignorosphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc. However, the activities of these spheres are probably determinant for our climate. — spirit-salamander
And I would add that we still do not understand the properties and behaviors and operations of water in certain circumstances. — spirit-salamander
Again, this has been done by climatologists, among others. Plenty of information about it for those not hellbent on ignorance.
— Xtrix
In this regard, please read Bjorn Lomborg. — spirit-salamander
Steve Koonin — spirit-salamander
Then why is it being discussed here in this forum? It can only be for the reason that science presupposes philosophy. — spirit-salamander
How do you know you're not the ignorant one? — spirit-salamander
If you say they can't possibly be right, then you're not a true philosopher and have no business in this forum. — spirit-salamander
I was addressing the OP which states Climate Change as the biggest human problem and that I do not think that is the case at all. The biggest problem is more or less people as generally lacking the ability to communicate and discuss in a calm and civil manner rather than tarring and feathering anyone who appears deluded, evil or wrong. — I like sushi
Bjorn Lomborg is a somewhat questionable source. — I like sushi
I'm not necessarily on Lomborg 's side either. It's just that the opposition seems to me to have abandoned objectivity to a large extent. And there are good reasons for my suspicion. — spirit-salamander
Though when it comes to climate, many seem to be tacitly muzzled by social pressure. — spirit-salamander
And...? — Xtrix
Yes, absolute knowledge and 100% certainty isn't possible. So what? — Xtrix
Bjorn Lomborg is not a climatologist. His writings are often misleading and have been shown to be misleading multiple times — Xtrix
Yes, the author of the ridiculous "Unsettled" is now your second citation? Is this really what you've been filling your head with? — Xtrix
If you want to make a connection between the evidence from climate science and philosophy, be my guest. — Xtrix
I could be. But it hasn't been demonstrated on this particular issue. — Xtrix
debunked — Xtrix
Forgive me if I question your judgment. — Xtrix
What "opposition"? You mean the entire scientific community? They've abandoned "objectivity"? — Xtrix
There is evidence that they have been extremely reluctant to talk about how dire the situation is, out of a desire not to appear "alarmist" or un-objective. That has been the social pressure. — Xtrix
Also, I don't think the media is scaring us ENOUGH. We should be much, much more alarmed. — Xtrix
I know enough to know that prominent neuroscientists today have stated that in their youth they were told to steer clear of research into ‘consciousness’ because it was regarded as too ‘fringe’ and would possibly end their careers. I also know that many scientists ‘play the game’. Meaning they will contrive experiments around a popular demand/theme in order to get funding if they can shoehorn in a way of getting the data out for something they need - often happens for military research. — I like sushi
great many so-called ‘Climate Deniers’ are simply questioning nutcases at the other end of the scale — I like sushi
To state that scientists have been wrong all of the time is blatantly false. Newton was not ‘wrong’ just because Einstein came along with more accurate equations. — I like sushi
The best data we have (from numerous sources) does strongly point to human impact being highly influential in regards to climate change (a very, very basic understand of greenhouse gases shows this). — I like sushi
That said, there is undoubtedly more to climate change than we know about given that such cycles cover vast periods of time — I like sushi
Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years), yet we could effectively end civilisation by the end of the century by various other means. — I like sushi
Certain predictions regarding water behavior would then simply be uncertain. An analogy to climate. — spirit-salamander
How often have scientists been wrong in history? Actually, all the time. There is no reason to believe them, especially when they become absolutist with their ideas. — spirit-salamander
But they seem to me to be more objective than the media coverage. — spirit-salamander
As said, the knowledge of the operations between the sun and the earth spheres is absolutely deficient. — spirit-salamander
Relying on what the current state of science says is not a good thing. — spirit-salamander
So you would prefer to silence someone like me? That is, ban me from all online discussions. — spirit-salamander
Today's science believes that the Earth's climate is an isolated thing: the climate changes largely because of greenhouse gases, and processes that come from outside the Earth are said to have only marginal influence.
I think it is the other way around. — spirit-salamander
The temperature at which water boils isn’t uncertain. — Xtrix
So there’s no reason to believe scientists, but Bjorn Lomborg is a citable source. — Xtrix
I mean the totality of the theses of every single scientist in every generation. Most of the theses can be said to have turned out to be wrong. I really think of all scientists up to the most unknown. — spirit-salamander
You’d know this if you spent a little time reading beyond the WSJ editorial pages and fringe books by pundits and other non-climatologists. — Xtrix
Regardless, I’m not talking about the media, I’m talking about the scientific community. The IPCC is hardly mass media. — Xtrix
No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim? — Xtrix
And the alternative to the overwhelming evidence and consensus is what? Bjorn Lonborg? — Xtrix
No. — Xtrix
Today’s science says NOTHING of the kind. — Xtrix
Begging your pardon, but you’re just another example of someone who’s been duped in my view. This cheap, uninformed skepticism you’re displaying isn’t an accident. — Xtrix
The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented. — Xtrix
It’s funny to see that climate deniers make many of the same arguments as creationists. — Xtrix
Now you're reading me uncharitable. I never said Lomberg was right. Only that he holds a different opinion that might be right. — spirit-salamander
But I have talked about the media, and by that I mean reports, documentaries on television. Koonin, I know you don't take him one iota seriously, but he still said that a reason for strong alarmism isn't to be found in the scientific paper, but is generated only by the IPCC or UN Council and eventually raised immensely in the news. — spirit-salamander
The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).
physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert criticized Koonin's 2014 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, "Climate Science Is Not Settled,"[23] as "a litany of discredited arguments" with "nuggets of truth ... buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from the standard climate skeptics' canon."
No, it isn’t. What is the basis for such a claim?
— Xtrix
Yes, it is. — spirit-salamander
Read scientific articles about this, and you will discover that I am right. — spirit-salamander
What would you say if I were right per impossibile. Would it make you doubt? Please answer me this question, because your answer would interest me very much. — spirit-salamander
One should only not lose one's mind and lay down one's life for the time-conditioned current state of science. — spirit-salamander
So the earth and its climate is not a closed system in your view? — spirit-salamander
No, it is not cheap skepticism. — spirit-salamander
If you knew the critical history of science and also read philosophy of science, you might get similar ideas. — spirit-salamander
I trust my judgment of human nature that they take it seriously. I can be wrong, of course. It is only enough for me that they are intellectually honest, which does not mean that they are right. — spirit-salamander
The issue has been politicized by a very powerful industry. There’s been years of massive propaganda— also well-documented.
— Xtrix
Climategate was also a real thing. — spirit-salamander
On the other hand, says Ward, climategate did damage public policy-making in the UK and in other western countries. “Rightwing politicians, allied with fossil fuel companies, used their influence to spread false claims about the emails and to argue against policies to cut fossil fuel use. That propaganda campaign still continues today.” The use of illegally hacked emails in Climategate also shows deniers will resort to all sorts of underhand methods to confuse the public, Ward added. “I am sure they would do the same again today – so scientists are going to have to remain vigilant and be ready to fight back at any time.”
But what do the creationists have to do with all this? — spirit-salamander
By the way, do you think that your favorite philosophers Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger would have advised to take empirical science at face value? Since you have read them, you know that they would all be enemies of scientism. — spirit-salamander
I repeat, do you think astrology has been debunked? I just need a yes or no. — spirit-salamander
Either way the human race will not die out due to climate change anytime soon (as in for thousands and thousand of years) — I like sushi
The current climate debate tends strongly towards a psychogenic and sociogenic mass phenomenon, keyword alarmism, which I think is dangerous, because you lose your cool head, which you need in case of any possible danger. One should just take an in-depth look at the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the criticism of science, to be more relaxed. I am very skeptical of climate modeling. Human beings imagine that they can model everything. That is hubris. The world is always much, much more complex than we think. — spirit-salamander
I just asked you what the basis was for such a claim, and you say "read scientific articles about this." WHAT scientific articles do you have in mind? By all means share — Xtrix
my thesis is that we know very little about the interactions between the sun and the many layers of the earth's atmosphere. And very little about the processes in and between these layers. — spirit-salamander
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.