Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention t or everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade. — Mikie
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Mikie
hy anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know — Mikie
You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. — AmadeusD
I simply don't care. — AmadeusD
Okay— what was the point? — Mikie
You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that. — Mikie
Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way — Mikie
You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take. — AmadeusD
One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions — AmadeusD
I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from — AmadeusD
No trouble here. Thanks for the video! — AmadeusD
First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. — Mikie
You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. — Mikie
I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. — AmadeusD
I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that.. — AmadeusD
It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense. — AmadeusD
Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance. — Mikie
But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.” — Mikie
you’re just a psychopath. — Mikie
in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part. — Mikie
Morals just differ... — AmadeusD
There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value. — AmadeusD
Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking. — AmadeusD
I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true. — AmadeusD
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. — AmadeusD
True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true. — Mikie
In this case, there is. — Mikie
Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. — Mikie
So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism. — Mikie
But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. — Mikie
Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me. — Mikie
I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person. — Mikie
Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny — Mikie
Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. — Mikie
Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels. — Mikie
I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back — AmadeusD
I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway — AmadeusD
i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. — AmadeusD
In this case, there is.
— Mikie
There, unequivocally, is not. — AmadeusD
You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy. — AmadeusD
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this. — AmadeusD
Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns.
— Mikie
Hmm, again, that's just your position. — AmadeusD
No nihilism required. — AmadeusD
The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. — AmadeusD
Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie
It isn't, So there we are — AmadeusD
Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
— Mikie
That is exactly what you are doing. — AmadeusD
No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about: — Mikie
Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh? — unenlightened
To which we can clearly see you're having an emotional reaction — Vaskane
Kasperanza's rhetoric is completely overturned by science — Vaskane
You're turning it into a debate about the morality of change being either good or bad. — Vaskane
Doesn't over turn the science though, that science by independent neutral organizations, not the "science" funded to find counter arguments against climate change, which indicates terrible consequences if solutions, necessarily, aren't found and met. — Vaskane
Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else. — Mikie
Of course it's an emotional reaction, but that doesn't make it a fallacy. It's okay to express emotions in arguments. It's an emotional reaction that I happen to agree with. — Vaskane
The facts of the matter aren't about moral correctness. There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane
I don't see anywhere in his sentiments that detail right and wrong in the sense of "Good" and "Evil," again Mikie is saying the guy is acting being a fool for disregarding the science. — Vaskane
It would be like you going to the doctor and finding out the science indicates you've an aggressive cancer, possibly too late to cure, but there is still a chance to rid your body of it should you act now, and you choose ignoring their findings, like "oh well, I don't have cancer, I feel relatively fine." — Vaskane
I rest my point, Mikie isn't making a moral argument about "Right" or "Wrong." — Vaskane
Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha? — AmadeusD
There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane
We already see effects scientists predicted, such as the loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and more intense heat waves.
Scientists predict global temperature increases from human-made greenhouse gases will continue. Severe weather damage will also increase and intensify.
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.
The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.
"The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Future effects of global climate change in the United States:
Here are some of the expected effects of global climate change on the United States, according to the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports.
U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Global sea level has risen about 8 inches (0.2 meters) since reliable record-keeping began in 1880. By 2100, scientists project that it will rise at least another foot (0.3 meters), but possibly as high as 6.6 feet (2 meters) in a high-emissions scenario. Sea level is rising because of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.
Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
Scientists project that hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase as the climate continues to warm.
More Droughts and Heat Waves
Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense and less frequent.
Longer Wildfire Season
Warming temperatures have extended and intensified wildfire season in the West, where long-term drought in the region has heightened the risk of fires. Scientists estimate that human-caused climate change has already doubled the area of forest burned in recent decades. By around 2050, the amount of land consumed by wildfires in Western states is projected to further increase by two to six times. Even in traditionally rainy regions like the Southeast, wildfires are projected to increase by about 30%.
Changes in Precipitation Patterns
Climate change is having an uneven effect on precipitation (rain and snow) in the United States, with some locations experiencing increased precipitation and flooding, while others suffer from drought. On average, more winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.
Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen
The length of the frost-free season, and the corresponding growing season, has been increasing since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen, which will affect ecosystems and agriculture.
Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise
Summer of 2023 was Earth's hottest summer on record, 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.23 degrees Celsius (C)) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980.
Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free
Sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is expected to continue decreasing, and the Arctic Ocean will very likely become essentially ice-free in late summer if current projections hold. This change is expected to occur before mid-century.
The bottles stand as empty
As they were filled before
Time there was and plenty
But from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all
I still might warn a few
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools — Grateful Dead
There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world. — unenlightened
The climate grift — Tzeentch
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.