I don't think we should argue about it one way or the other, any more than we should be spending our time arguing about the existence of Zeus and Hormaz.

We have enough resources and wealth to provide for everyone. We choose not to.

Why? Because those who benefit from massive wealth inequality don’t want it. Then the millions they’ve brainwashed over decades rise to defend their positions.

What anyone who complains about government leaves out is their commitment to private tyranny and plutocracy.

No reason why we can’t have a new bill of rights tomorrow — except for the above.

Oddly enough, I own it. Right there on my bookshelf. I guess it’s been a while…

Appreciate it.

Hear hear. :clap:

Where is the Chomsky quote from?

So it looks like sea level will rise by 10 inches, inevitably.

https://apnews.com/article/science-oceans-glaciers-greenland-climate-and-environment-9cd7662658ebbeaba05682352de8aa87

This summer has made it even more obvious that we’re heading for disaster— and that much of it is already locked in from the last 30 years of inaction.

Maybe the real reason is that using the idea of classes, we can explain too much. — Art48

I tend to agree with this. It’s taboo. Race is also taboo, but in terms of explanatory power I think class is higher.

The GP class of the Gullible/Poor – the gullible “cognitively challenged” who think with their emotions rather than their mind. If religious, they are gullible enough to believe stories such as Adam and Eve, and the Great Flood actually happened. — Art48

I don’t think describing things this way is useful…or accurate.

And where do the opinions of the GP come from? From media (TV, news shows, the Internet). And who controls much media content? The WG. In fact, one popular “news” outlet in particular is, in all but name, the WG’s official Ministry of Truth — Art48

This is important. I recommend Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, if you haven’t read it already.

A second rate philosopher as compared to first rates such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Heidegger is still pretty good compared to a tenth rate. — Janus

Can’t argue with that list. I’ve been meaning to read Hegel. Seems daunting but probably isn’t once one starts.

You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles, — Janus

That’s definitely an issue— and it should be minimized if possible — but the government does all kinds of things that cause pain. Look at what the Fed is doing now. It may not be popular, but if it’s considered necessary (as this is), they should go ahead with it. The lockdowns were another example.

Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about? — Janus

That’s a hard problem. I’ve seen some proposals— but first and foremost the US has to lead the way, along with other major emitters. They should also help developing countries develop sustainable practices.

:up:

Why do you seek to interpret everything through the lens of a second-rate philosopher? — Janus

I think that’s a bit harsh. I think there’s plenty to learn from Schopenhauer, and he’s an excellent writer — very clear. I also think his interpretation of Kant is a good one. Although he does take some liberties…

:up:

I am a full time grad student and full time night worker. — Astro Cat

Welcome. What are you studying?

Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking.
— Xtrix

I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours. — Janus

I didn't say he wasn't knowledgable, or even that he was wrong -- and certainly not that he was bought. True, you're not saying that I said it -- but then why bring it up?

Anyway -- I don't doubt he's a good scientist and is a knowledgeable one -- he's interesting. I don't dismiss him. But I do think that his points -- at least some of the ones I menitoned -- are nitpicky, and run the risk of encouraging defeatism and the delay tactics of fossil fuel interests.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak.
— Xtrix

The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the governement will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate. — Janus

Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?

This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier.

This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. — Janus

Fair enough.

yeah I’d definitely appreciate it! — Albero

So I found it -- from my bookshelf, in the end. Very old-school of me.

Meanwhile it should be carefully observed, and I have always kept it in mind, that even the inward experience which we have of our own will by no means affords us an exhaustive and adequate knowledge of the thing in itself.

[...]

Yet inner knowledge is free from two forms which belong to outer knowledge, the form of space and the form of causality, which is the means of effecting all sense-perception. On the other hand, there still remains the form of time, and that of being known and knowing in general.

Accordingly in this inner knowledge the thing in itself has indeed in great measure thrown off its veil, but still does not yet appear quite naked. In consequence of the form of time which still adheres to it, every one knows his will only in its successive acts, and not as a whole, in and for itself: therefore no one knows his character a priori, but only learns it through experience and always incompletely. But yet the apprehension, in which we know the affections and acts of our own will, is far more immediate than any other. It is the point at which the thing in itself most directly enters the phenomenon and is most closely examined by the knowing subject; therefore the event thus intimately known is alone fitted to become the interpreter of all others.

[...]

Accordingly the act of will is indeed only the closest and most distinct manifestation of the thing in itself; yet it follows from this that if all other manifestations or phenomena could be known by us as directly and inwardly, we would be obliged to assert them to be that which the will is in us. Thus in this sense I teach that the inner nature of everything is will, and I call will the thing in itself. Kant's doctrine of the unknowableness of the thing in itself is hereby modified to this extent, that the thing in itself is only not absolutely and from the very foundation knowable, that yet by far the most immediate of its phenomena, which by this immediateness is toto genere distinguished from all the rest, represents it for us; and accordingly we have to refer the whole world of phenomena to that one in which the thing in itself appears in the very thinnest of veils, and only still remains phenomenon in so far as my intellect, which alone is capable of knowledge, remains ever distinguished from me as the willing subject, and moreover does not even in inner perfection put off the form of knowledge of time.

[Emphasis is mine.]

(Pages 196 to 198 of the E.F.J Payne version. I copied the above from the Internet once I found it in my book.)

I think this is extremely important to keep in mind when reading Schopenhauer. It's one of those things that simply gets overlooked -- probably because most people don't really read these books, or if they do, don't do so carefully enough. It took me a while before I even really noticed it or let it truly sink in: he's not saying he's discovered the thing-in-itself after all. He's not contradicting Kant in really any way, other than to say that, since he claims the will is the most immediately known thing to us, this should be what's used to describe the entire world and the thing-in-itself. A kind of "force" which permeates all beings.

Hope that helps a little. I would continue reading on as well, because he next says:

the question may still be raised, what that will, which exhibits itself in the world and as the world, ultimately and absolutely is in itself? i.e., what it is, regarded altogether apart from the fact that it exhibits itself as will, or in general appears, i.e., in general is known.

Which I think is getting at your question, too. I won't spoil it by posting the answer... :wink:

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. — Jack Cummins

But what is the self in the first place?

I think what’s usually being asked with questions like this is: doing what you’d like to do or being who you’d like to be.

We all have a sense of how we’d like to grow or improve in some way— doesn’t have to be fancy or complex; for example, learning to knit, or losing some weight. This sense of who we’d like to be is related to what’s meant by our “true” selves, in my view.

When you’re doing what you’d like to be doing, you’re being true to yourself — to your professed values. Otherwise I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean — assuming the question makes any sense to begin with, which is arguable.

I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. — Janus

We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. There — fixed it. Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. He points out that 1.5 is arbitrary, that 2030 is artificial, that decarbonizing will be very hard, etc. Yeah, no kidding.

I’m curious as to why you’re drawn to his voice in particular?

Personally I think he gives cover to a lot of delay tactics, and echos a lot of stuff that can be read on the WSJ editorial page. That’s dangerous too. As much so as setting unrealistic goals.

Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. — Janus

You’ve said this several times now. Who’s saying the problem is “merely political”? Our leaders in government, who make crucial decisions about the future, are important — but that’s hardly the only problem.

Good solutions are indeed being disrupted by the fossil fuel industry, when it comes to legislation and government action. I don’t see any way to deny this. When it comes to individual consumer choices, innovation, cost, infrastructure, etc., those have their own obstacles. Sometimes it’s just NIMBYism, for example— hardly Big Oil’s fault.

A lot of this just reeks of strawmanning I’m afraid.

I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. — Janus

That’s one truth, yes. We should cut down on our energy use. But who’s “we”? Individual consumers? Yeah, that’s been a nice industry technique for 30 years: buy better lightbulbs, recycle, compost, turn off lights, etc. Passes on responsibility to individuals and ignores or minimizes those in power — the choices of industry and government.

If by “we” you mean our government — yeah, they have the ability to build public transportation, electrify thousands of USPS trucks and school buses, stop leasing federal land, regulating business, etc. Choices average individuals don’t make. I’d say that’s far more important — and what most people want, incidentally.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. We all play a role, but law, private enterprise, and economic policy play a much bigger role. The case of public transit versus individual cars is a good example— most people want efficient public transit systems. Yet they’re encouraged — by choices made by real people — to purchase cars instead. And there’s no secret why that is.

So while Smil is interesting and generally correct, I don’t think there’s much that’s new there. Yes the problem is very hard, yes individual choices play a role, and yes we should have realistic goals and look at how reliant we are on fossil fuels with clear lenses. I don’t see being unrealistic as much of a problem, however — most people are probably more pessimistic than anything.

Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good.

How does he draw the conclusion that the noumenal world (reality as it is in itself) is pure will? — Albero

It’s a good question.

Later on in the World as Will and Representation, I think volume 2, he’ll say that because we cannot know anything whatsoever beyond time, we cannot truly know the “thing in itself” — but the will is the closest we can come— and so he makes that leap. A pretty important point that’s buried in the text. He mentions that the veil has been lifted as much as possible, or something like that.

I don’t have it available to cite the page, but if you’re interested I’ll make a note to do so in the future.

So ultimately, you’re right— our experience of will is still experience.

I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. I'm always open to counterarguments, of course, and in fact I would love to be wrong. — Janus

I'm only familiar with Smil in that I've seen some YouTube videos; I haven't read his books.

He's interesting, though, and I'd like to hear more about what he thinks some realistic solutions are. If you're more familiar, can you elaborate on a few? Otherwise it seems like he's saying it's hopeless. While that may be the case -- and there's no sense being a fool about things if it is -- there must be some things we can do to at least mitigate the absolute worst case scenarios.

Yes. I can't remember the last time Tzeentch commented on that thread.

The context of it, though please correct me if I am wrong Tate @Xtrix @Tzeentch is that you were all involved in a highly inflamed discussion about climate change. — fdrake

Just to be clear: Tzeentch wasn't involved in any of the discussions. It was just done in response to another discussion about politics, apparently.

This case was clear cut. I flagged it and waited -- no moderator was online, so I deleted it myself.

Now feel free to whine about this huge injustice. It's clear you have a grudge and I'm really not interested.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.

https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units. — god must be atheist

Please don't pretend to know what you're talking about; you don't. These sites themselves state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- that's all you need to understand.

Being a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with specific heat capacity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of the property to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen do not have this property to the same degree -- i.e., they are much more transparent to IR.

(CO2 doesn't get any warmer in the process, by the way. So GW has nothing whatsoever to do with specific heat capacity.)

Sunlight absorbed at the surface of the Earth warms the surface, which radiates that heat back towards space. Oxygen and nitrogen are relatively much more transparent to infrared than carbon dioxide and methane. As concentrations of the latter increase, more of the infrared is reflected back to the surface instead of escaping to space.

Think about those extremely thin and light "space blankets" -- they have very little heat capacity, but keep you very warm through reflection of your body heat.

Greenhouse gases are gases that allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back toward space. They do this because the molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In greenhouse gases, those wavelengths are mainly found in the infrared portion of the spectrum, rather than the visible or ultraviolet.

This behavior was demonstrated in laboratory measurements by physicist John Tyndall in 1859. Since then, it has been confirmed countless times by instruments that measure light spectra. It can even be demonstrated with nothing more than an infrared camera and a candle.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases its heat-trapping effect, warming the atmosphere. Humans are doing this today primarily by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. But in the past, there have been other drivers of warming like the slow-changing cycles in Earth’s orbit that controlled the timing of the ice ages. That initial warming influence was amplified by releases of CO2 into the atmosphere1. Whatever the source, an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will have the same effect: increasing temperatures by trapping more infrared radiation.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/simple-measurements-demonstrate-that-co2-is-a-greenhouse-gas-tim-ball/

No arguments. — god must be atheist

You know, maybe you wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you showed the slightest bit of humility on this issue -- an issue that has been studied for decades by climate scientists (people who have dedicated their lives to this specific issue). Given the wealth of information available on the topic, your ignorance is really inexcusable -- but that's not my problem with you -- my problem with you is your arrogance.

Do you ever ask yourself: "What is more likely: (1) that I have refuted/undermined the science of climate change because of something I found that everyone has overlooked, or (2) that maybe, because I'm not an expert, I am simply confused?"

Either you don't ask yourself this, or you do but you conclude that (1) is more likely -- in which case, you're not only ignorant, but suffer from delusions of grandeur. I cannot imagine an ego of such magnitude. How old are you? If you're 16 or 17, I can look the other way. Otherwise, good lord...

Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases: — god must be atheist

:roll:

Again...how about learning something about climate science before posting stupidities in public? You're embarrassing yourself.

I'll help you:

https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/why-is-carbon-dioxide-called-a-greenhouse-gas/

https://climate.nasa.gov

Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming. — god must be atheist

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more warming we see. It's really that simple.

Are you really trying to argue that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas now?

If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims. — god must be atheist

I'm actually embarrassed for you. It's as if I'm watching a kid walk into a physics or chemistry department and informing everyone about how wrong Heisenberg was...and then confidently concluding with, "Any questions?"

Good lord.

The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere. — god must be atheist

No, the physics says quite the opposite -- you're just ignorant.

You can actually test it yourself, by the way. Experiment at home with CO2 versus ambient air and see which one heats up faster.

When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.

Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity. — god must be atheist

Yes, which is the latest slogan of climate denial. "The climate is always changing." "It's happening, but not due to human activity." You fall into the latter slogan, with a slight tweak -- you want to use the word "entirely" instead. Every scientist will concede that warming doesn't occur ENTIRELY because of human activity -- that would be absurd. If that's your only contribution to this discussion, it's a truism. But you go further than that, making ridiculous claims about CO2 and natural "forces," all of which have been dealt with by climatologists for decades.

One doesn't have to deny that climate change is happening to be considered a climate denier. There are all types.

There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No. — god must be atheist

Yet you can write two more posts, spouting nonsense. Got it.

You have no argument, and probably didn't read most of what I wrote. If you had, you'd see it wasn't "my" argument -- it's the argument and evidence put forth by NASA, NOAA, climate websites, university departments, etc.

So in other words, this is just a childish way to get away from the fact that you either don't read or don't have an argument.

On the other hand, you have plenty of psychobabble to spew:

You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow. — god must be atheist

:snicker: I am this, I am that...thanks for your diagnosis.

"Dissent." lol. A person on the Internet who's completely ignorant about climate science and conjures up bogus theories about CO2 does not constitute scientific dissent. Sorry.

At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise. — god must be atheist

I never once "swore" not to reply to you -- you made that up, or misread what I wrote -- the same way you misunderstood the video posted from a TV show. Seems to be a theme with you. Try reading a little more carefully.

Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
— Tate

Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.

This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution)
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
— Xtrix — god must be atheist

You're embarrassingly silly. That video is from the TV program called "The Newsroom". I posted it because I thought it was funny -- notice the little laughing emoji at the bottom?

Of course, like most climate deniers, you show up believing that climate "alarmism" is a problem, and thus you're so quick to jump at any opportunity to "refute" it that you failed to even notice any of this. Not surprised.

In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.

My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. — god must be atheist

And you wonder why you get ridiculed. I guess I'll do the work for you:

97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure?

Earth’s climate has changed naturally over the past 650,000 years, moving in and out of ice ages and warm periods. Changes in climate occur because of alterations in Earth’s energy balance, which result from some kind of external factor or “forcing”—an environmental factor that influences the climate. The ice ages and shifting climate were caused by a combination of changes in solar output, Earth’s orbit, ocean circulation, albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface) and makeup of the atmosphere (the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone that are present).

Now stop here and ask yourself whether you still believe scientists haven't considered "natural forces." Maybe -- just maybe -- they have considered just that, for the last 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years or so...

Or you can go on believing you're onto something they've all missed. Again, your choice.

Anyway -- to continue:

Scientists can track these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provide evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago. The ice cores have shown that rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are closely linked.

Scientists also study tree rings, glaciers, pollen remains, ocean sediments, and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun to get a picture of Earth’s climate going back hundreds of thousands of years or more.

...

Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.

I'll leave you to read the rest. Interesting stuff for those actually curious about climate science.

How We Know Today's Climate Change is Not Natural

So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.

The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety — god must be atheist

Let me clue you in: scientists the world over have indeed taken into account natural variation and natural phenomena. The rate of change we see is due to human activity -- namely, deforestation and the burning of fossils fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Not complicated. Nothing political about it. No one is saying human activity "alone" accounts for everything. It accounts for the rate of change we're seeing, as is obvious from the graphs already given alone.

You have it backwards: the reason why anyone would be compelled to deny this or suddenly get "skeptical" about the consensus is for political reasons -- not scientific ones. That makes you more of a puppet for the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign than anything else. Or you're just incredibly ignorant.

Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish. — god must be atheist

A climate denial talking point. More conspiracy theories.

So the overwhelming evidence is faked because scientists get government funding...so that the governments can take over the world by pushing for green energy. Makes perfect sense.

Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone. — god must be atheist

"Created by man alone" is a bullshit statement so you can weasel out of an embarrassing argument. "Natural forces" have been accounted for. The rate of warming we see is due to human activity.

Here's a tip: whatever you view as a discovery -- i.e., a hole in the "theory" -- stop for a few seconds and ask yourself if perhaps this has been thought of by people who have studied the issue their entire lives. Then do a quick google search to see what they say about it. You'll find answers. Do that BEFORE making a fool of yourself on the internet.

But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing. — god must be atheist

Who? Where are their publications? Who are they? I can think of a handful of oil-funded scientists who are a laughingstock in the science community and have been debunked over and over again...do they count? Is that really what you're referring to?

Why anyone would go with these idiots over the overwhelming evidence is beyond me -- unless for political reasons, which is usually the answer.

Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY. — god must be atheist

Yes, we can and we do. Volcanoes, clouds, water vapor, Earth's trajectory, etc. To bring you up to speed: this has been studied for a long time by people called climatologists.

Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me. — god must be atheist

Your choice of words? No -- your ignored and arrogance.

Yes, MY thinking capacity is "seriously lagging and lacking," says the guy who thinks he's cracked the case of climate change all by himself. "We can't rule out natural forces!" True, I don't know how else to deal with this other than ridicule. I think it's appropriate when it comes to such pomposity.

And I never claimed to be a "philosopher," nor do I want to be.

Is having sex "unprofessional" or beneath the dignity of the office?
— Xtrix

Yes. As I said previously. If you cannot avoid "private" affairs, you are not ready for public responsibility. — javi2541997

I can’t prove that you’re joking, but I’ll assume you are. No one can really believe such idiocy.

I don’t hate Zizek, I just never feel I learn anything from him. If he’s discussed the topic here than that’s a credit to him. I haven’t seen it done often.

Imagine being offended by a woman dancing at a private party. How truly pathetic.

I support the idea that statesmen and leaders shouldn't behave like how she behaved in that party. She has a responsibility to her entire nation and a role model to the public. — L'éléphant

Is this a joke?

Yes, a responsibility in public. Not in private parties in the off chance that a video leaks. Maybe she should stop having sex too, lest a video get leaked of it. Or perhaps keep it strictly missionary.

if Benkei believes her behavior is normal, then why is there a need to bring in Trump, — L'éléphant

I’m the one that posted the video of Trump. Because I think it’s funny— it was a joke, not an argument. Grow up.

I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.

I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot. — god must be atheist

:gasp: :rofl:

Yes, so I guess we can throw out all that consensus— you’ve discovered something all the world’s experts have missed. Please take your discovery to a local climatology department and explain to them that clearly human activity isn’t affecting climate change.

Or you could stop and think for three seconds about whether your statements are ignorant and embarrassing. Your choice.

Just a result from a quick Google search about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:

___
Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.

There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
___________

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

So that’s the last time I take you seriously I guess. Oh well.

Could be worse...



Jesus... :brow:

The problem with this is not so much the inequality per se (which is a problem, to be sure), but the extremely lopsided distribution of power. — Manuel

However, if we are forced into being simple, because otherwise we either factor in or factor out too much, then I'd say this is very much heavily related to the deregulations and massive power gains given to private corporations in the 80's, continuing to this day. — Manuel

Well of course I agree with all of this...

I think society is too complex to single out one or two factors which we can use to explain our current situation. — Manuel

But, as I said, society is more complex than this, so there are too many factors to analyze to make this into a "theory" or explanation. — Manuel

That's obviously true, but I'm not really intending for it to be a theory or explanation of society. I'm highlighting two factors, the combination of which has influenced me personally (and perhaps many others) and -- from what I see -- have been generally overlooked when we talked about responses to the unprecedented threats we collectively face.

So it's a pretty specific, and personal, reflection -- but I think interesting nevertheless.



Well we can hash that out some time on the climate change thread perhaps.

When the thread has been reduced to libertarian platitudes, it's officially dead.

A politician should not be involved in "private" affairs because she is a public representative. — javi2541997

Come on now. Think for a second about how ridiculous this sounds. You still have a right to privacy, even if you're a politician. She did nothing illegal -- she drank and danced. I'm sure she has sex too -- should we say the same thing if someone released a video of that? Is having sex "unprofessional" or beneath the dignity of the office?



I think it is a double standard, and the standard being: when an famous attractive woman is recorded dancing, make sure to play the video a hundred thousand times -- good for clicks and ratings. They tried to do the same thing with AOC a couple years ago -- dug up an old college video of her dancing around, and played it relentlessly for the same reasons. That backfired, and this will too I think.

Modern civilization is like a juggernaut, and the idea that anyone is at the helm and in control of its trajectory is a mass delusion. — Janus

But the trajectory isn’t inevitable. We got here, and are staying here, because of decisions made by human beings — human beings with power. Leaders in governments and businesses have made these decisions, and continue to.

There’s nothing inevitable about any of it. We could very quickly decarbonize if our leaders wanted to. If we can shut the world down for several months, as we did during COVID, or radically transform our manufacturing as we did during WWII, we can do this as well.

The future trajectory is also not something that’ll just happen. There are many paths we can take. So while no one person is in control, the choices still lie with human beings— particularly those in power.

If the influence of dogma— from market fundamentalism to Christian fundamentalism to the happy endings in movies — has got us here, then changing that can get us out. Not an easy task. But it does no good being defeatist or fatalistic.

I never once said “all that matters is biology”. — NOS4A2

the biology is paramount. — NOS4A2

The distinction exists at the cellular level and begins at such an early stage in development that any change to it is impossible and irreversible. — NOS4A2

Sounds like the same tired point over and over to me as well. Although it’s true you didn’t say the exact words “all that matters is biology.” Great way to weasel out of the situation. Typical of you.

Anyway— I was fairly neutral about this issue. Now that your position is clear, I know exactly what the right position is: the complete opposite. I thank you for that.

There is no definite determination what causes the global warming. We like to blame ourselves, (but leave me out of that please, I take no blame), for burning too much carbon. True, I shan't argue that, it contributes to global warming. But I am not convinced that that alone is the only contributing factor. — god must be atheist

I would recommend you spend more time with counter-arguments. This one in particular is very old and, in my view, long refuted. Unless you're saying that warming isn't completely due to human activity and that nature is involved somehow -- which is a truism.

The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.

So I'm not seeing your point here.

So the Church of Self-Actualisation and Limitless Growth? :smile: — apokrisis

I like it. Many followers indeed.

I’m just not sure what calling it religious buys you in terms of rational analysis here. — apokrisis

Fair enough. It's my own idiosyncratic usage -- which is why I'm never upset if people don't care for it. I only mentioned it to let you know that I hadn't ignored capitalism or the sense of infinite growth -- I just consider them quasi-religious dogmas. Instead of "God did it," you have "the free market did it" (viz., the efficient market hypothesis).

Fossil fuel had to be entropified if it was technically possible. It was just sitting there waiting for a suitable speck of the right organism to land on it. — apokrisis

Are you arguing that this problem -- namely, global warming -- was inevitable, given the availability of the resources and the appropriate technology?

What this organism thought it was about - its religious beliefs - were quite irrelevant. An enabling fiction. — apokrisis

I like to focus on actions and behavior as much as anyone. But on the other hand, attitudes, beliefs, values, intentions, etc., are nevertheless very important to factor in. Going forward, therefore, I think determining where to direct our energies is vital, and so recognizing beliefs as an issue is important -- because then we can dedicate the appropriate resources to rectifying that problem. In this case, I think it's largely a matter of education.

Yeah, I'm sure the ancient Greeks lacked the entire idea of testing beliefs by comparing them with experience. — Yohan

Strange that you'd want to pick a fight with me out of the blue because you dislike something I wrote to someone else. Oh well.

(1) I never once said that.
(2) The exact SEP quote was already given and responded to.
(3) The Vedic concept of truth, and reality, is very different from the Western conception.

Regardless, quoting Wikipedia or SEP is fine, but doesn’t negate that a word like “truth” in modern usage is not what was meant by the Greeks. The word in Greek is aletheia— and it meant something uncovered or revealed or, as Heidegger puts it, “unconcealment.” The idea that philosophy is the search for truth, with “truth” taken to mean the correspondence of “belief” with “fact,” is simply incorrect. This is anachronistic, and painting the picture of the Greeks as "primitive scientists." But if you're convinced by it, you're welcome.