A tiny insurrection. No big deal. After all, they were “burning down cities” all summer leading up to this.

Election was stolen — can’t prove it yet, and all evidence is to the contrary, but we’ll go on believing it. The deep state and whatnot…

Always good to have at least one delusional Trumpist spouting nonsense. Helps to identify the crap they’re being fed.

“Russia interfered in the 2016 election” (turns out it was true, but not enough to swing the election — as I was saying from the beginning)

=

Literal insurrection at the Capitol building, threatening to hang people, claiming the election was stolen by mass voter fraud…

Yeah, it’s a wash. Seems like a fair and balanced assessment to me.

There is no "key problem" to address first, second third... — Bitter Crank

Of course there is. Unless we want to claim all problems are the same— or that problems don’t exist. But that’s absurd.

I’d say any issue that’s potentially existential— nuclear weapon proliferation, for example — is more urgent and deserves more attention than others that are also important but not existential (say abortion rights).

we are stuck with problems that are nigh unto insoluble. — Bitter Crank

I don’t think that’s close to true. Plenty of solutions. But if you’re correct— then we might as well “wave goodbye to each other,” as Chomsky would say. Either way I’m fighting to the end — for no other reason than “why not?”

I would argue there there is no experience for Heidegger that is simply unconscious , automatic , habitual. — Joshs

Seems at odds with almost everything I’ve read of Heidegger, but okay,

Look at the effort to defend racist, fascist Trump. :starstruck:

Gotta love those fascist tears.

As someone who has written a lot here about Heidegger’s questioning of the ‘is’, isn’t your notion of non-judgmental awareness part of what Heidegger was critiquing? Isn’t all experience evaluative? Can there be such a thing as a neutral, passive subject of awareness, a pure , empty self-reflexivity? — Joshs

I'd love it if there were some link, but I see very little in Heidegger in terms of discussing meditation.

I wouldn't say all experience is evaluative -- in fact, most isn't. Most is unconscious, automatic, habitual, etc. Most ready-to-hand activities aren't evaluative. We may be able to do a little evaluation afterward, but then we'd be in a present-at-hand mode of being. At least that's what I think Heidegger would say.

My own opinion is that meditation is indeed a present-at-hand type experience, without necessarily involving any ideas about "substance," which crept in fairly early in the history of Western thought. I would say Parmenides and Heraclitus were seeing similar things as the Buddha: "is-ness." It changes/becomes, it stays the same, it is differentiated in trillions of ways, etc. The ancient meaning of phusis and logos and noein and aletheia, for example, suggest this -- decades before idea and ousia came to dominate.

Whether or not these early thinkers grasped the importance of time (as temporality) is another matter.

If only one thing exists, then we are “it.” We ourselves literally are made in the image, or Isness, of God. But we don’t experience ourselves that way. We are immersed in the world. We live in a steady stream of touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, emotion, and thoughts, day in, day out. How can we experience the Isness which we are? Or, rather, is us? By quieting the stream and searching within. Meditation. Sitting in a quiet room. But the stream goes on. I relive experiences and thoughts of the day. But if I sit long enough, the stream flows more slowly. If the stream stops, you may experience yourself as Isness itself, as “Uncreated Light”—or so they say. Sadly, I don’t speak from experience. — Art48

It's difficult but not impossible -- just keep at it. Eventually you do reach a state where anything that
arises (to use the lingo) -- thoughts, images, sounds, sensations, or any phenomena whatsoever -- just becomes something to be aware of, without reacting to or judging.

When you get good at that, it feels like a rather odd place to be, and you start experiencing first-hand all the talk of "oneness" and "unity." I like to think of it as "being," -- what you called "is-ness."

I think of it as an exercise. It's good for me. It's much harder than yoga or running or lifting weights. Which is why I rarely do it!

But anyway -- I don't see how meditation has much to do with quantum mechanics. A lot has been said about QM and meditation, but so much of it strikes me as woo-woo.

The speech was rather tame compared to the lunacy of the delusional right-wing nuts out there. For those that didn't read it or listen to it, here are some highlights:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

I see nothing inaccurate here.

These are hard things, but I’m an American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all America. And I believe it’s my duty, my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Ask yourselves: Are they or are they not saying the election was "stolen"?

Yeah, they are. Biden's being too kind by saying "not even the majority." The polls indicate it is indeed a majority who believe the election lie.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger at the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots. And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. That’s why respected conservatives like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans “a clear and present danger” to our democracy.

Yep.

We, the people, will not let anyone or anything tear us apart. Today, there are dangers around us we cannot allow to prevail. We hear — you’ve heard it, more and more talk about violence as an acceptable political tool in this country. It’s not. It can never be an acceptable tool. So, I want to say this plain and simple: There is no place for political violence in America, period, none, ever.

Spoken like a true dictator! lol

I'm not even a Biden fan -- but let's at least be honest about things.

I believe that the majority of the harms that death visits on a person are post-mortem. Why? Because the ante-mortem harms seem relatively insignificant compared to the harmfulness of death. — Bartricks

If we think of death as an event, then it's the point where life is over (where one goes from "here" to "no longer here," as you put it). That event may be harmful (here I think "painful" or involving suffering) or even defined as harmful regardless of whether there's suffering (as it appears you do). But it's still an event, and once it's occurred I don't see how anything afterward (post-mortem) can be spoken of as "harmful." Pain, suffering, joy, pleasure, are all phenomena that apply to the living.

What you're doing in the OP is arguing that death itself, as an event, is more harmful than anything life can bring. But you never discuss "post-mortem" harms -- and I think for good reason: namely, because it's nonsensical. I cite the following:

And the death penalty is a stiffer penalty than life imprisonment - or at least, we generally consider it to be - even though life imprisonment is a ilfe of discomfort. — Bartricks

Here arguing that death is worse than living even a miserable life in prison.

Yet death is harmful to a person even when it deprives them of nothing worth having, — Bartricks

Same as above.

So, the intrinsic value of life is clearly eclipsed by the disvalue of the discomfort. Yet if such a life is up and running already, then one should keep it going for as long as possible. That makes no real sense unless death itself exposes the person who undergoes it to new and worse harms than those this life is exposing them to. — Bartricks

Two things here.

(1) The assumption that you make is that one should go on living "for as long as possible" is begging the question. Some people really would rather die than go on living. So it's true that IF everyone wanted to go on living no matter what life threw at them, then it makes sense that death must be far worse than even the worst of life. But that's simply not the case.

(2) Even if it were the case, you're still only speaking of an event: death. So all you've done, even assuming (1) is correct, is shown that death -- as an event -- is worse than any kind of suffering in life.

With the stipulation in place that talk of an existence after death is for another time, and that death is just when a person is "no longer here," how can we possibly discuss harms inflicted "post-mortem"? What does that mean unless we assume an afterlife of some time? How can the dead be harmed?

Again, all you're doing -- in my view -- is saying that death itself is a greater harm than going on living. That's arguable. So why add anything about the harmfulness being inflicted "post-mortem"?

I'm afraid this is essentially incoherent, at least without further explanation.

Imagine voting for and endlessly defending Donald Trump and then blathering about dictators. :lol:

From where I'm sitting, the most important "problem" facing humanity is a lack of inner awareness. — Bret Bernhoft

Maybe. If those in power were a little more aware, perhaps then they wouldn’t make such short-sighted, greedy, anti-social decisions. In that case I can see it. But we can’t all be meditators, I guess.

Anyway — even with awareness, ideology still lurks. One can be an aware Christian or Buddhist or capitalist. Doesn’t necessarily change that belief system and corresponding actions. Culture and education can help, but that’s a long term solution.

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. — Jack Cummins

That's an interpretation, sure. But then "greater reality" is really what you're discussing, no? Why use "God" or "Shiva" or "Blue Unicorn" and argue about whether "it" exists, knowing the connotations? Just inquire about a greater reality, and we can talk about what that means and whether it exists.

The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations. — Jack Cummins

We're left with human beings, with human brains and senses and perspectives, yes. But that doesn't make every perspective equally true or equally valid. It doesn't mean we have to take every claim seriously. I could claim right now that there's a god called Yojimbo, with 5 eyes and 7 arms, who created the world and controls every thought we have. Should we argue about whether or not it exists?

We give extra attention to stories and myths we were raised with. That's understandable, but there's little need to continue with it straight to the grave. There are others ways -- in my view better -- to spend our time. For example, better to inquire about the human being itself, the being interpreting the world in various ways -- the being that says it's created by this or that god, or is infinite, or material, or natural, or whatever.

If that's what we mean when we're arguing about "God," fine. But I'd still say that there's so much baggage associated with the word ("God") it leads to unnecessary confusion.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. — Jack Cummins

Most of my friends in real life are theists. — Jack Cummins

I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. — Jack Cummins

Exactly...so it's no wonder you care so much about the issue. Hard not to when you're surrounded by people who think alike.

I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. — Jack Cummins

Do you also consider the existence of Zeus or Hormaz or Shiva as one of the toughest?

I think you see my point. The reason this question is especially relevant to you— understandably — is because you have been raised in the Christian faith and live in a predominantly Christian culture.

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.