Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
18
47%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
7
18%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
5
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
13%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
8%
 
Total votes: 38

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon May 08, 2017 1:06 am

Here's evidence that back in 1981 we already knew as much about the problem as we really need to know:
On the evening of Tuesday, 8 December, 1981, the UK’s only commercial TV channel, ITV, broadcast an hour-long documentary called “Warming Warning”. It was among the earliest occasions – possibly the earliest – anywhere in the world where a major broadcaster aired a documentary dedicated solely to the topic of human-caused climate change.

The documentary, which was made by the now-defunct Thames Television, has sat in the archives largely unseen ever since. Until now. Carbon Brief has tracked down the copyright holder, FremantleMedia Ltd, and persuaded it to release into the public domain a selection of key clips from the documentary.

The clips provide a poignant, historical insight into what scientists knew about climate change almost four decades ago – and how the world was beginning to react in terms of the resulting geopolitical, technological and societal ramifications. Many of themes still resonate strongly today.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-war ... ate-change

"Resonate strongly today" is putting it mildly. All the key current issues, from the greenhouse effect to the greater warming at the poles, to sea level rise, to opposition from fossil fuel companies, are there. Sure, we've learned a lot since then - but it mostly fills in details of the big picture which was already plainly visible.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Bundokji » Wed May 10, 2017 9:21 am

If global warming reveals unpleasant truths about human behavior/activities, i personally find our attitude/reaction to the perceived danger to be more revealing.

The average individual accumulates knowledge from "experts" in order to know how to conduct himself in the world, and then he builds expectations on how others should conduct themselves. The more there is a consensus among "experts" or "elites" on a certain issue, then the individual who follow them is an elitist by definition, and the elitism becomes much more powerful when it is linked to morality or selflessness. Being a member of the collective effort to solve the problem of global warming (which affects mostly the poor) can become a source of meaning, another dogma, another religion.

The outcome of this mindset is an overly calculated individuals, who are in my opinion, don't know how to live. We should calculate our carbon print, our daily calorie intake, we should not smoke, and we should eat more vegetables and healthy food (i curse the day when my sister read an article on the internet about the health benefits of garlic, since that day, the food started to taste disgusting)

I can imagine a reaction to my input would be " So, are you suggesting that we should not care and just live without considering the consequences of our actions?" and this very question represent the same problem, that we need to be taught how to be reasonable human beings.
“It happened that a fire broke out backstage in a theater. The clown came out to inform the public. They thought it was a jest and applauded. He repeated his warning. They shouted even louder. So I think the world will come to an end amid the general applause from all the wits who believe that it is a joke.”
Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu May 11, 2017 11:13 pm

Absolutely on topic!
:smile:
These conservatives want to convince you that climate change is real
“My co-author Paul Douglas has a saying liberals may not like,” said Republican Rev. Mitch Hescox. “Believing in science doesn't make you a liberal; it makes you literate.” Hescox, a former coal industry engineer, heads the Evangelical Environment Network and is co-author of the book Caring for Creation: The Evangelical's Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment. He spoke today about a new television campaign to break through the beltway echo chamber and counter the notion that only liberals believe in climate change...
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/these- ... eal,460332

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:46 pm

Clive James seems ambivalent about it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 822fa4cdd3

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:58 pm

robertk wrote:Clive James seems ambivalent about it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 822fa4cdd3
Thanks for the heads-up, Robert. That article is pay-walled so I searched for "Clive James climate" and came up with rather a lot of results. Here's one:
Today’s Weekend Australian includes an article that begins:

“Iconic, ailing Australian satirist Clive James has penned a savage essay on climate change alarmism, controversially cooking everyone from Barack Obama to Kevin Rudd to Tim Flannery to Al Gore to Donald Trump in the boiled and rising ocean of his wit…”

The essay in The Inquirer section of the same newspaper is an extract from chapter 22 of the book I have been working on for many months ...
The book, edited by Jennifer Marohasy, also stars Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, Jo Nova, Matt Ridley, Bob Carter (dead though he is), Willie Soon and Roy Spencer. Anyone with any knowledge of the denialist scene will recognise most of these names, so our mate Clive is in :quote: good :quote: company. ... oh, all right, I will let you all see for yourself. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/06/cli ... acts-2017/
It's Climate Change: The Facts 2017 :rolleye: and is published by the IPA https://www.desmogblog.com/institute-public-affairs :toilet:

But let's not be too hard on Clive, who has no scientific expertise or credibility whatsoever but was in his day a brilliant writer - lit and film critic, memoirist, etc, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_James.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:13 pm

Just to counterbalance Clive and Jen ... https://thinkprogress.org/al-franken-is ... da0077308a

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Tex
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:46 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Tex » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:25 am

I was already as concerned as I could get somewhere around 20 years ago. We're a bunch of damned lemmings.
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:31 am

Kim OHara wrote:Absolutely on topic!
:smile:
These conservatives want to convince you that climate change is real
“My co-author Paul Douglas has a saying liberals may not like,” said Republican Rev. Mitch Hescox. “Believing in science doesn't make you a liberal; it makes you literate.” Hescox, a former coal industry engineer, heads the Evangelical Environment Network and is co-author of the book Caring for Creation: The Evangelical's Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment. He spoke today about a new television campaign to break through the beltway echo chamber and counter the notion that only liberals believe in climate change...
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/these- ... eal,460332

:coffee:
Kim
Meanwhile, here in Oz ...
Religious leaders occupy environment minister's office to protest Carmichael coalmine
Rabbi, Uniting church reverend, former Catholic priest and Buddhist leader call for Frydenberg to withdraw support for mine

“I have been involved with the environment for many years,” said [Rabbi] Keren-Black. “But I haven’t taken action in this way before. It seems to me now the situation is so dire and so urgent that we have to get him to take responsibility. Because we’re talking about an ethical responsibility to the future.”

“In April this year I, along with ecumenical Christian, Jewish and Buddhist leaders, signed an open letter to Minister Frydenberg stating our clear opposition to the mine. We do not feel that the response has been sufficient,” he said.

Keren-Black is joined by seven other religious leaders occupying Frydenberg’s office in Melbourne, including a Uniting church reverend, a former Catholic priest and a Buddhist leader.

They have vowed to remain in the office until Frydenberg makes a statement removing his support for the mine, or until they are removed by force.

They say that emissions from burning coal from the mine – which would be the biggest coalmine in Australia’s history – would make meeting the Paris commitment of keeping global warming at “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels impossible.

As the occupation happens inside the office, outside about a dozen religious leaders are holding a symbolic “funeral for coal”.

Jarrod McKenna, teaching pastor at the Cornerstone church in Perth, is among those leading the funeral. ...
It's a shame it's necessary but :twothumbsup: for them anyway.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Will
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Will » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:58 pm

Never have been too exercised about mankind's effects on weather changes. We tend to magnify our importance to the planet. Either we are the source of all goodness or the source of all evil. It may turn out that solar cycles have as much (or more) influence as our gaseous spewings.

In any case, the cooling of man's intellect and the heating of our emotions are far more a climatic problem than the weather.

High thinking and simple living is the way.
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Nietzsche

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:24 pm

Will wrote: It may turn out that solar cycles have as much (or more) influence as our gaseous spewings.
They don't.
The evidence for the human cause of global warming is overwhelming. This is why there has been a consensus among climate researchers for a long time, and almost every scientific academy on the planet has come to the same conclusion. The most important evidence: when it gets warmer, the energy has to come from somewhere (1st law of thermodynamics). It can only come through the radiation budget of our planet. (No, Rick Perry, the energy does not come out of the ocean. To the contrary, measurements show heat is going into the oceans). The changes in this energy balance are quite well known and are shown near the front of any IPCC report – see Fig. 1. The biggest factor is the increase in CO2 concentration as well as a few other greenhouse gases, also added by human activities. The incoming solar radiation has changed just a tiny bit in comparison – since 1950, by the way, it has even decreased and thus offset a small part of the human-caused warming – hence humans have probably caused more warming than is observed (best estimate is 110% of observed warming).
See more at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -conclude/ including inline links which don't survive copy-pasting but back up what it says.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Will
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Will » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:40 pm

Solar Cycles and the planet's climate:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

More charts on long term solar effects:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Nietzsche

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:25 am

Will wrote:Solar Cycles and the planet's climate:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

More charts on long term solar effects:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
Will, solar cycles do affect our climate and if you visit and read the page I linked to, you will see that climate scientists know all about them, take them into account, measure how much effect we have, and conclude that the influence of solar cycles is far less than the influence of our carbon emissions.
If you have already read that page, the question is why you (still) choose to believe the lunarplanner site and disbelieve NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, WMO and every other reputable science body - not to mention all but three (I think) of the world's national governments?

:namaste:
Kim
Last edited by Kim OHara on Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

chownah
Posts: 6574
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:36 am

Will wrote:Solar Cycles and the planet's climate:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

More charts on long term solar effects:

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
These links are for an astrology site. I think they have a flawed view of the effects of celestial bodies on the planet earth....but I have not taken the time to analyze their claims about the sun because I reject their basic premise for their views and..... need I explain more?
chownah

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Dhammanando » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:51 am

chownah wrote:These links are for an astrology site. I think they have a flawed view of the effects of celestial bodies on the planet earth.
It certainly leads the site-owner to some interesting conclusions about why climate change conferences arrive at the outcomes they do...
The United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between 7 December and 18 December 2009. At the start of the conference on 7th December Mercury was in geocentric conjunction with Pluto and square Saturn — a difficult combination for any agreement.
On 16th December, developing countries led by China and India walked out of the conference. The New Moon was about to take place with the Sun-Uranus in square — a good indicator of disagreements.
Along with an extension of the Kyoto protocol, a predecessor to a Copenhagen agreement, and one which the US opposes, BASIC has made new demands, including the contribution of funds (for stopping forest degradation, for instance) and the sharing of green technology. With Makemake in close conjunction to Saturn this is not at all surprising.
And a new kind of informal fallacy — the astro-ad hominem.
Professor Tim Flannery (born 28 January 1956) an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, and environmental and global warming activist is the Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council. He has a natal Saturn-Pluto square with his secondary progressed Sun in exact trine to his natal Saturn. His Saturn-Pluto square is part of the First Quarter waxing square of the earlier synod.
:alien: :shock:

User avatar
Will
Posts: 791
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Will » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:03 pm

Kim: "the question is why you [Will] (still) choose to believe..."

Partly my contrary personality and partly the general human fact that conviction or confidence springs up in some minds from only a few kinds of evidence, with others it takes scores of evidence. In short, proof certainty is not an automatic threshold that all minds agree to.
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Nietzsche

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:44 pm

Will wrote:Kim: "the question is why you [Will] (still) choose to believe..."

Partly my contrary personality
That would normally lead you to pretend to believe something you know to be false, either to test others' knowledge or simply to :stirthepot:
and partly the general human fact that conviction or confidence springs up in some minds from only a few kinds of evidence, with others it takes scores of evidence. In short, proof certainty is not an automatic threshold that all minds agree to.
If that means anything at all, it suggests that you should go along with mainstream science, which has 'scores of evidence' as against your astro-site which only has 'a few kinds of evidence' at most.

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:43 pm

A short history of denialism: https://theconversation.com/on-the-orig ... shit-80955
Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. It was a beautifully written, if distressing, bit of what we today call “research translation”. The “silent spring” was the impact of DDT as songbird species were killed off.

Carson tried to expose the chemical industry’s disinformation. For doing so, she was roundly and untruthfully attacked as a communist and an opponent of progress. Silent Spring was one of the most popular and vetted overviews of environmental science of all time. Yet lies and bullshit prevented a decent policy response for a decade....
...
...
In the US, at least 180 congressional members and senators are declared climate deniers. They’ve received more than US$82 million in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and its partners.
:reading:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:00 pm

The eclipse is put to good use:
Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue

Eclipse mania will peak on Monday, when millions of Americans will upend their lives in response to a scientific prediction.

Friends of mine in Georgia plan to drive 70 miles to find the perfect spot on a South Carolina golf course to observe the solar eclipse. Many Americans will drive farther than that, or fly, to situate themselves in the “path of totality,” the strip of the country where the moon is predicted to blot out the sun entirely.

Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.

For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science ...

We trust scientific expertise on many issues; it is, after all, the best advice we can get. Yet on climate change, we have largely ignored the scientists’ work. While it is true that we have started to spend money to clean up our emissions, the global response is in no way commensurate with the risks outlined by the experts. Why?

Sheer inertia is one of many reasons. The changes we need to make are hard, and they demand large-scale, collective action: to rebuild our energy system, to save our forests, to change our cars, to create radically better buildings.

But a bigger reason is that these changes threaten vested economic interests. Commodity companies benefit from exploiting forests. Fossil-fuel companies, to protect their profits, spent decades throwing up a smoke screen about the risks of climate change.

Most of them now say they have stopped funding climate denial, but they still finance the careers of politicians who say they are skeptical of climate science and who play down the risks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/clim ... -clue.html

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
FallAway
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:58 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by FallAway » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:49 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue

Eclipse mania will peak on Monday, when millions of Americans will upend their lives in response to a scientific prediction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/clim ... -clue.html

:namaste:
Kim
I feel that this opening statement of the NY Times article is worth a remark.

The word "mania" suggests that a mass of humanity has lost its senses somehow, and will (past now, so "did", I suppose is the word that is logically required) "upend their lives" responding to a scientific prediction. I'm questioning that slant on the travel of millions to watch the eclipse from the best vantage point. Not sure how many lives were "upended" in this desire to see the total eclipse. What is meant here, by this word "upend"? I'm sure there were vehicular accidents given the numbers, and likely some people were careless enough to damage their sight. That could count as "upending" some individual lives, no doubt there. Is this sloppy journalism?

The second part of the statement indicates that this "upending" did happen in response to a scientific prediction. I think I have to disagree there. The scientific prediction was accurate (as eclipse prediction has been for a very, very long time) but I don't think the masses moved for that reason. The masses went to experience a physical phenomena that speaks to us in the language of awe, not science. I don't think there are too many scientific words in most people's description of this event. Words like "awe", "amazing", "sublime", "no words", "breath-taking" and other such synonyms are more likely flying around the social network today than scientific terms and vocabulary.

I don't think that "science" can take credit for this unscientific response from the masses. If it is, it is glomming.

From the same article:
We tend to trust scientists.
and
We trust scientific expertise on many issues; it is, after all, the best advice we can get.
In my opinion, today we are left with no other available advice from which to choose. The scientific perspective has all but swallowed other ways to think about and understand our natural world. Other paradigms do exist, philosophy, religion, art...but science has scientifically removed them from the equation. We are told, almost forced, to bow to the findings of science over everything else.

According to science, humanity has no way out of any difficulty but "their" way. Articles of this type keep the division alive and well, as though science is embodied and not the persons who study science. The scientist themselves don't seem to part of the "we" and "them" equation. The scientists themselves seem to have been removed from the equation.

I appreciate science, I don't worship or idolize it. I believe other paradigms should have as much exposure as science does so that we can see a phenomena, or a situation, from a few different angles rather than just one.

:namaste:
Be a lamp unto yourself.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:17 am

:goodpost:
:thanks:
... but I've got to disagree with some of it.
You're quite right that the opening is overly sensationalist. On the other hand, if you were surprised by that, you have been avoiding mass media more successfully than I have. :smile:
When you come to ...
From the same article:
We tend to trust scientists.
and
We trust scientific expertise on many issues; it is, after all, the best advice we can get.
In my opinion, today we are left with no other available advice from which to choose. The scientific perspective has all but swallowed other ways to think about and understand our natural world. Other paradigms do exist, philosophy, religion, art...but science has scientifically removed them from the equation. We are told, almost forced, to bow to the findings of science over everything else.

According to science, humanity has no way out of any difficulty but "their" way. Articles of this type keep the division alive and well, as though science is embodied and not the persons who study science. The scientist themselves don't seem to part of the "we" and "them" equation. The scientists themselves seem to have been removed from the equation.

I appreciate science, I don't worship or idolize it. I believe other paradigms should have as much exposure as science does so that we can see a phenomena, or a situation, from a few different angles rather than just one.
... your last sentence worries me a little. I don't like to exclude other ways of looking at things, but I do think that science offers us the best way of examining and understanding the physical world, and that putting religious perspectives on an equal footing in this role leads to nonsense like Creationism, which in turn weakens the credibility of science where it is needed.
What science doesn't do, and can't do, is provide the moral perspective we need. "What can we do here?" has scientific/rational answers. "What should we do here?" doesn't.

:namaste:
Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Phena and 7 guests