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
23
50%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
9
20%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
6
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
11%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
Will
Posts: 1020
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
Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost. -- AN 10.1

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
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: 7488
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: 4154
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, 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: 1020
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.
Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost. -- AN 10.1

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
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: 4999
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: 4999
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: 4999
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

chownah
Posts: 7488
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:58 am

FallAway wrote:
I feel that this opening statement of the NY Times article is worth a remark.
It is called "creative writing". Clearly there was no attempt in the article to substantiate the literal meaning of the opening statement.....it is called "creative writing".
chownah

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 5:55 am

Kim OHara wrote: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:


Kim, I'm afraid I don't understand how these hands are attached to the same body; I don't see the connection.
Kim OHara wrote:... 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.
With respect, straw man arguments are more in keeping with Justin Gillis, the author of the quoted opinion piece. Re-reading it with a little more discrimination gives me to think that this is not journalism, but activism. Fine if is, but just say so.

There are more religions in the world than Christianity and within Christianity are more views than Creationism. Taoist, Buddhist, Islam...all world religions should be being heard about this issue of climate change, as should all the major philosophical schools. And bring in the arts, let's see what some creativity can add to the mix. Not just in this issue, but in all the larger issues humanity is dealing with.

Big issues need response from all corners. It's a big world out there.

:namaste:
Be a lamp unto yourself.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
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 6:15 am

FallAway wrote:
Kim OHara wrote: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:


Kim, I'm afraid I don't understand how these hands are attached to the same body; I don't see the connection.
Just that sensationalising an issue to grab the reader's attention is (sadly) standard journalistic practice, especially in commercial media.
Kim OHara wrote:... 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.
With respect, straw man arguments are more in keeping with Justin Gillis, the author of the quoted opinion piece. Re-reading it with a little more discrimination gives me to think that this is not journalism, but activism. Fine if is, but just say so.
No straw man, FallAway - but perhaps a lack of clarity. :embarassed:
I will try again, making the emphasis stronger: 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 ...
There are more religions in the world than Christianity and within Christianity are more views than Creationism. Taoist, Buddhist, Islam...all world religions should be being heard about this issue of climate change, as should all the major philosophical schools. And bring in the arts, let's see what some creativity can add to the mix. Not just in this issue, but in all the larger issues humanity is dealing with.

Big issues need response from all corners. It's a big world out there.

:namaste:
Absolutely!
As I said, science can't tell us what we should do, nor can it give us reasons for doing it.

: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 7:08 am

Kim OHara wrote:I will try again, making the emphasis stronger: 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 ...
I almost have to laugh Kim, when both of us know that the best way of examining and understanding the physical world is to see it all as illusion. However, conventional reality needs attending to in a more conventional way.

If you are saying that a religious perspective is not a science perspective (and again, leaving out Buddhism and its connections to present day quantum physics) I agree. But it sounds like you are saying that scientists have a superior knowledge because they investigate the physical world. I maintain that equal footing is needed, not measured by factual knowledge of the worldly world, but measured by the fact itself that humans have a spiritual dimension to them, one that science continues to say doesn't count. And again, I will mention that philosophy and the arts have equal contributions to make in understanding.

The public should be provided with a well-rounded view of climate change and reasoned arguments from both sides. This is only fair. If all the public can now count on are biased and sensationalized opinion pieces trying to come across as scientific argument, we are all facing this with a collectively skewed mind.
...science can't tell us what we should do, nor can it give us reasons for doing it.
And yet, that is just what is happening is it not? And the reason they indeed are giving us is delivered with the fear factor - we're all going to die, unless we listen to science alone.

:namaste:
Be a lamp unto yourself.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
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 11:44 am

FallAway wrote:...The public should be provided with a well-rounded view of climate change and reasoned arguments from both sides ...
"Both sides"? Which sides did you have in mind?

:coffee:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests