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

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. Respectfully. This is obviously something that ignites a serious passion in you, and that's admirable.

I simply don't care.

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

Exactly. That is your opinion. It is not mine, despite likely agreeing on the basics of the 'facts' of the matter. Though, i appreciate you taking this route instead of trying to assert that my lack of moral alarm is somehow indicative of psychopathy :P

hy anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know — Mikie

Surely not, given the above. But i think jokes are fun. I cannot conceive of why the subject matters to that.

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. — AmadeusD

Okay— what was the point?

I simply don't care. — AmadeusD

Was this the point? In which case, why bother coming here and announcing it?

I’d like the human species to go on. You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that.

But i think jokes are fun. — AmadeusD

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way:

Okay— what was the point? — Mikie

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions; we can co-exist in that state.

You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that. — Mikie

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from, and how it's informing your passion to encourage others to essentially hold the same moral outlook at yourself. But my 'point' is more that i think it's misguided to be so certain in your moral reactions, as to allow yourself to denigrate others on that basis. Particularly over a joke :P

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way — Mikie

Nice. I found the previous commenter's joke funny too :) No trouble here. Thanks for the video!

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take. — 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. But so be it— it’s true I’m not always nice.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions — AmadeusD

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. (Here I’m referring to what the consequences of warming are, which are well established — but even if they weren’t, I don’t see how anyone can justify not caring about the possibility. Ditto nuclear war.)

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from — AmadeusD

Well I do make the assumption that rational human beings care about themselves, their kids and grandkids, and generally the survival of the human species. I fully acknowledge there are some that don’t. But generally those people are labeled psychopaths and are relatively rare.

So it’s not that we “should” care — I assume it’s a given. I don’t say “you SHOULD care about your kids”, I assume it when talking to a parent. If someone were to ask, “Why are you so certain that I SHOULD care about my kids?” I wouldn’t really know how to respond pragmatically.

No trouble here. Thanks for the video! — AmadeusD

No problem- be well!

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

Hi mate,

Just to preface this, because it's going to come across slightly combative, I have no skin in this argument. I accept the facts about anthropocentric climate change (despite your assertion; more below). and have no problem with you, or you holding your views. I in fact called them admirable. I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. So, that disclaimer in place...

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
I generally don't check dates on posts. I see things i find interesting and reply :) Apologies if that's not your jam! Genuinely; folk do stuff differently. It wasn't personal at all. As none other of my comments are!!

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. — Mikie

This is both not in any way inferable from having a different moral reaction, and it is in fact, counter to the truth. As i've noted, I understand and accept, basically, the 'mainstream' line on anthropocentric climate change. You do not need to posit all these empirical differences to account for our moral differences. This somewhat encapsulates why your take makes me both chuckle, and want to prod a bit. If your assertion is that one requires an in-depth, technical knowledge of climate change science to form a valid moral response to it, I'm just off the bus a few stops back. That's all. But..

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.

If that is not the case, forgive, but that is exactly what you are illustrating above. Your assertion that my non-denial is 'because' I don't know the facts is just plain ridiculous, though. So even with my potential error in your thought, what you've said is the kind of unsupportable position I'm trying to deal with in the previous paragraph...

I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. — 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.

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that.. — AmadeusD

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.”

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

True, you could have an accurate account, knowing full well what’s in store for humanity if we do nothing, and simply don’t care — in which case, you’re not ignorant, you’re just a psychopath. But I prefer my approach of assuming you aren’t, but rather haven’t fully grasped the consequences of 3 or 4 degrees of warming. That’s not at all invalid— in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part.

I can look at nuclear weapons and go “eh, my intuitions tell me we don’t really need to do much about this,” but is that valuable in any way? Who cares about intuitions? We’re dealing with reality. What you appear to be saying is “I don’t think there will be many consequences to climate change— the facts are unsettled on that issue— and so I feel little moral impetus to do anything about it.” I’m saying you’re factually wrong, and that if you were better informed of the consequences you wouldn’t feel that way anymore— provided you’re relatively normal.

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

Sure, and I did thank you for not taking the 'latter' route :) . But, neither is required or inferable. Both speak a bit more to the shakiness of your conviction, to a third party. Morals just differ... Whether that's 'correct' ethically isn't the question here. There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.

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

I would say, yes, and i would even ascribe 'ignorance' to the commenter. But this is exactly what I intuited, and described - his lack of interest isn't buffoonery anymore than you're not being interested in why I don't care is *shrug*. I would say pointless, though. Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking.

you’re just a psychopath. — Mikie

No. I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. If your form of deduction rests on such a wild black and white fallacy, i think you're charge of buffoonery might be more than a little ironic ;)

There are so many assumptions on your position it's hard to tease apart without sounding like an utter wanker.

What do you infer by 'care about'? How do you ascribe this to non-persons? I am an anti-natalist. Does that explain your lack of understanding of position? Because psychopathy isn't on the table anymore, for you.

in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part. — Mikie

Its not fair, reasonable or anything other than a protection of your emotional investment. Sunk-fallacy and all that.
You've a world-view that allows for only two options with regard to an adequate understanding of climate change:

1. One knows about climate change adequately, and cares the same way you do;
2. One knows about climate change adequately, and is a psychopath


This is - to put it mildly - f'ing ridiculous.

Morals just differ... — AmadeusD

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true.

There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value. — AmadeusD

In this case, there is. Again, assuming the person isn’t one who cares nothing about others. Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. They simply don’t know how serious the matter is— hence, ignorance.

I’m ignorant of plenty of things, and my ignorance has caused harm I’m sure. That’s on me. But had I known differently, I wouldn’t have said or done what I did. Why? Because I really do care about other people. My remarks online, for example, may be far more hurtful than I realize. But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. If I were to fully know just how harmful they could be, however, I almost certainly wouldn’t say them.

You get the idea.

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

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.

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

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.

And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. — AmadeusD

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.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny— as if morals are simply “I like Mozart, you like Beethoven”. I’m not that interested in discussing moral relativism. We’re dealing with a real problem in the real world— not an academic debate on ethics. Global warming is a threat to humanity and if we don’t do something about it it will inflict real pain on real people, both present and future generations. Your simply “not caring” about that is your business. Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true. — Mikie

Hmm.. I think I see what you're trying to establish - putting the glibness aside, I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back(I would also posit those things are a result of a lack of impulse control, rather than an actual intention to do those things actively, as it were).

You're conflating actions (readily understood to represent a defect (though, I would argue its not a moral defect, but a neurological defect per above hypothesis)), and a mere moral difference of opinion. (be careful not to jump forward to actions from here... they may be inferred, but not entailed. I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway). I don't have any particular view on actions being taken - Could be good to do so, might not be.

In this case, there is. — Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. 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.
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.

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. Nothing more, nothing less, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone but you. There is absolutely nothing factual, objective, or verifiable about that claim.

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

Perhaps. But that is a far cry from your position elsewhere, even in this same post. I also pointed out i'm an anti-natalist. A fully valid position that results in my not really caring about this issue. No nihilism required. I still very much enjoy my life when i can, and appreciate that those around me also do. I recommend Rivka Weinberg on this particular topic and how it doesn't denote any kind of anti-social attitude.

But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. — Mikie

This is true - and I am not denying there are swathes of (lol) denialists who come to the same conclusion as I (emotionally speaking) or, more importantly, an actively negative position on combating CC, but deny the base facts of your position (i.e moral reaction). So, we've got at least three distinct positions - none of which require psychopathy to be inferred. Assuming what you mean is nihilism, that's not required either as outlined above.

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

Yes, and yes :)

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

You might want to pull back from using examples that are readily distinguishable. I'm not going to answer to this one. The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. That's a rather silly and kafka-esque illustration to my mind.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny — Mikie

Scrutinize all you want. That's actually what we're doing here. I've rejected one black and white fallacy around the position. and in fact, semi-accepted one other. That's all. The discussion is on going.

Ive denied only the logical inference of psychopathy from differing morals. That's ...absolutely fine.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. — Mikie

It isn't, So there we are :)

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. Your emotional reaction is causing you to make wild speculations about another person's mental state - because you cannot fathom the possibility that the amount of time and effort you've sunk into this topic might be relatively unimportant (see, i can do it too!).

Neither my take there, or yours, is in any way reasonable. We do not disagree about hte facts. We have a different moral reaction within the bounds of general human cognition. I am not alone, and I am not even on the fringes in this. If you're seriously suggesting there is only one allowable moral reaction to the climate crisis, I cannot continue taking you seriously.

I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back — AmadeusD

Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.

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

So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.

In this case, there is.
— Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. — AmadeusD

There is, and I've done so. Correctly. That you're struggling with it doesn't change that.

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

There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.

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

Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.

So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.

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

:lol:

This is why most people shouldn't "study" philosophy.

No, it's not my "position" that a person who cares about others wouldn't want to do nothing as others burn. That's logic.

No nihilism required. — AmadeusD

Antinatalism is nihilism, through and through. Well disguised, I grant you.

In any case, to use this as justification for doing nothing while others burn is pretty ridiculous.

The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. — AmadeusD

Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie

It isn't, So there we are — AmadeusD

It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?

In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.

Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?

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:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh?

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

Suffice to say I cannot understand how it is even possible, without what I've asserted, that you're appealing to feelings to support your position - whcih is exactly what you've done. However, the below... So, adieu :)

Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh? — unenlightened

Fair; hahahaha

:up: :up:

Hi Vaskane :)

At risk of this being another round of redundant talking past each other... (so, forgive if i bow out quickly. I can see it's not the best use of time if that does occur)

To which we can clearly see you're having an emotional reaction — Vaskane

Do you not see Mikie calling someone a buffoon as an emotional reaction? Because to me it is one without doubt, and if you do not agree we have no further to discuss. The premises we're on aren't the same. I could accept my response is emotional in the sense that it irked me that Mikie is so intensely convinced of his moral correctness, yes treats others with moral disregard. Noticing things is naturally an emotional process.
So, from my perspective, to deny that would be a patent disregard for the facts of the matter. It is a personal attack, not an attack on the argument. Though, I note it doesn't reach the ad hominem level. I guess this just isn't an issue. Pretending his response was not emotional, but my noting it was, is incoherent.

Kasperanza's rhetoric is completely overturned by science — Vaskane

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Based on only the comments that have been addressed, his position isn't one on the science. It's one on the moral status of the facts of the matter (given you both are saying his 'facts of hte matter' are counter to science, I defer, but it's not all that relevant as I never addressed that in any way whatsoever and so responding to it misses me completely). The comments i've addressed could well be in light of accepting the entire mainstream position, including recommendations on combatting CC. If that's not his intention, sure, but this just further supports my intuition that Mikie's responses are confused emotional comments about something I never claimed or addressed.

I simply said calling someone a buffoon might not be hte best idea. It isn't. Clearly.

You're turning it into a debate about the morality of change being either good or bad. — Vaskane

That is exactly not what I did. My entire position rests on change being neither good nor bad without an arbitrary framework to measure it against(and I refrain from choosing one, basically. Could be A-moral i guess). If that isn't clear, I apologise, but i'm unable to formulate a version of what I've said earlier more clearly if that is the case. A failing on my part. But, regardless of that failing, it is entirely counter to reality to pretend I'm making any kind of moral argument about climate change.

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

At no stage did I even tangentially intimate that I was anywhere near denying any of the science around anthropocentric climate change. I actually actively acknowledge it, and my, let's say trust, in it, multiple times. I also observed Mikie's position as admirable. I actually called the situation a crisis at one point. If that doesn't indicate an emotional state that is in line with Mikie's, im unsure what would. I simply reject his moral position and find nothing convincing in his warblings about it.

Further, and contrary to your assertion, Mikie was, in fact, arguing that for me to hold the position I hold, i must be suffering some kind of defect of humanity (his initial formulation was to charge me with psychopathy. Laughable in many ways, not worth addressing further. I've dealt with it). So, at-base I'm unsure where this is relevant, unless you're (maybe accidentally) actually responding to Kasperanza. Though, in that case, I suppose i can ignore it. He may well have been saying untrue, or misleading, or wilfully ignorant things ( in fact, i would agree, it's just not relevant)

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.

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

The irony burns.


Hi again Vaskane,

It seems you're under a false impession about my part in this exchange. Very well may be my doing, though so i apologise - and i will note that as i go. But it is entirely wrong to say that I care much at all about the 'buffoon' issue. It is minor, uninteresting and a passing comment in my initial response. You might see my response as emotional - sure - but it was mild, and in passing.
What is substantive, and on which, Mikie and I actually exchanged, is the moral valence of caring, or not caring (to different degrees, i can assume) about the climate crisis (and nominally, what to do about it).
I disagree that not caring is objectively immoral. Mikie thinks it is. That's the disagreement. It is not emotional. It is not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of my subjective position vs his attempt to make it objectively immoral... about whether "I don't really care about climate change" is a statement illustrating immorality. I disagree, he appears to think it does, regardless of any potential objections. So, up front, I want to make that extremely clear. I don't give a monkey's about any ongoing discussion to do with 'buffoon' in this thread. It was a throwaway comment, though one I agree with still.

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

Fair enough, certainly can't argue with this; totally reasonable. As noted, it didn't reach ad hominem - but I didn't attempt to claim it was a fallacy or ad hominem. I merely suggested it would be better not to. Which I, subjectively, think is the case. That's all I'll say about this.

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

Hmm... I readily (even in the comment you're responding to) agreed. Unsure if you've missed that this was not the subject of our exchange(as outline in my preamble), from my perspective, and as I tried to point out multiple times. If i failed, that's on me. But let this be clarity there, in any case.

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

Hmm, fair enough in the face of taking that 'buffoon' element of the exchange as major I have no problem with that; you're more than welcome to hold that view with no objection for me... But, because to me it was extremely minor, I have no idea why you're/he are fixated on the way I communicated about his emotional response. Seems hypocritical (and ironic, considering Mikie's last little bit of immature nonsense just there is exactly a gripe about communication, while accusing me of same...wild). But that said, it also doesn't bother me, just seems odd.

The substantive exchange, and the 'gripe', for my part was directly related to his (in my view) asserting my moral response to (the established facts of) Climate Change have a definite, inarguable moral value in the negative. The 'buffoon' disagreement was very much secondary and unimportant to my mind. If it didn't come across that way, again, apologies for not achieving enough clarity.

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

Its not at all like that to my mind, but taking it as an analogy, sure. Still, there is no moral content in either that reaction, or an extremely cautious one. Those just are the two reactions we've chosen to discuss. Mikie thinks otherwise. That's the conflict.

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?

I'm not engaging with a complete ignorance of that fact (assuming you've read the exchange). Otherwise, thank you for a rather pleasant exchange.

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

Some people just need to scream abusively at someone else. It doesn't really matter why. I guess that could be analyzed out as having to do with self-righteousness, but it's more likely that they received that kind of abuse in childhood and it's now cycling. The drama is hidden. All you see is the screaming.

it's still just rhetorical hyperbole rather than making a factual moral claim about right or wrong. — Vaskane

I agree. But that isn't his position. Which was my point. But it seems we more or less agree on what's actually happened.

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

:up: Glad someone understands. :wink:

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.

—NASA

But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.

But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed. — Mikie

It is now patently clear you’re communicating in bad faith.

Take care buddy.

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet.

On another note, Taylor Swift is coming to New Zealand next month.

the science — Mikie

The Science™!



As a point of curiosity, do you know the difference between a superheated vapour and a saturated vapour?

WRT water, at a given pressure and temperature below the boiling point, the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere reaches an equilibrium between evaporation and condensation known as saturation.

At the boiling point the saturation point becomes 100%, and above that point the vapour is superheated. (From ancient memory. You might want to check and correct a bit.) It is the result of the wretched internet, that implied adhoms are the first recourse of the wilfully ignorant.

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.

The acceptance of this as fact, involves first a shock and fear, and then a great mourning of the loss of a way of life and an imagined future. No more green and pleasant land, no more 2 .4 children, no more universal foreign holidays, the end of accumulation and consumption without limit. So of course the people who point this out become targets because shooting the messenger always works. This whole thing is @Mikie's fault, because he is insisting on things we don't want to be true.

When I was growing up, a government leaflet was sent to every household in the UK to explain what to do in a Nuclear war. Something about putting tape on the windows and hiding under the table with a bottle of water. We just hoped no one would press the button. But Climate change is not optional, we have already pressed the button, been pressing it for a Century and are knowingly keeping it fully pressed and even pressing harder. This is the despair behind the denial. This is the self-hatred that becomes hated of the World. This is wishing Gaza on the whole of humanity.

I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing.

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

The climate grift is just a lightning rod designed to keep your attention fixed on a problem that, supposedly, we are all responsible for, while keeping your attention away from problems that have clearly discernable causes, usually involving powerful lobbies and a lot of money.

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?

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

:lol: Case in point.

Doomsday prophecies and claims to esotheric knowledge are signals to me that certain folks have been sent off the deep end.

Doomsday prophecies and claims to esotheric knowledge are signals to me that certain folks have been sent off the deep end. — Tzeentch

Do you think it's a hoax?

Like with all things (and good grifts) there's a core of truth somewhere to be found. That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short).

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.