Climate Change

Pluto · Post by **Pluto** » Thu May 07, 2015 1:00 pm

It does seem ridiculous I agree. We look for what is logical, what makes sense, what fits with our mode of understanding. The info on Climate Change, both for and against, addresses these faculties directly. It is as though the info has been created especially so that the transfer will occur as smoothly as possible.

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Thu May 07, 2015 1:59 pm

So, Pluto, have you started your own research yet?

It takes time to find the sources that you trust.

A few books I can recommend on the subject:

Andrew Weaver: "Keeping our Cool"
Fred Krupp: "Earth: The Sequel
Gwynne Dyer: "Climate Wars"
Naomi Klein "This Changes Everything:..." -- this is the best, published most recently.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Thu May 07, 2015 2:56 pm

The climate changes: it's a dynamic, on-going, system...it never was, and never will be, static.

The question is: how much is mankind driving or directing this change?

Certainly, mankind has an effect but my bet is we aren't (currently) the prime driver of climate change (which has an inertia and pattern predating mankind).

At best: our industry speeds up (slightly) what happens naturally (or, slows down [slightly] what happens naturally).

I'm thinkin' the boat we're in (sinkin' or not) would 'be' the boat we're in no matter what mankind did (or does).

So: I don't deny what is obvious...I can't, however, pin the tail (the blame) on the donkey (mankind).

Simply: there is no blame to lay...nature is just an amoral bitch...she doesn't work for us.

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Thu May 07, 2015 3:30 pm

henry quirk wrote:Simply: there is no blame to lay...nature is just an amoral bitch...she doesn't work for us.

Have you read the "Scientists' warning to humanity" article I posted earlier on this thread?

Pluto · Post by **Pluto** » Thu May 07, 2015 3:37 pm

Ned wrote:So, Pluto, have you started your own research yet?

It takes time to find the sources that you trust.

A few books I can recommend on the subject:

Andrew Weaver: "Keeping our Cool"
Fred Krupp: "Earth: The Sequel
Gwynne Dyer: "Climate Wars"
Naomi Klein "This Changes Everything:..." -- this is the best, published most recently.

Yes, I started. I've put up two links whose positions are as sceptics. I will look into the books you've mentioned, and thank you for those. Naomi Klein is interesting as I know of her other books No Logo and Shock Doctrine, both which I found very helpful in positioning my own thinking on the subject. And I say she is interesting for those books I just mentioned but also because of her state of mind before writing her latest work. As she herself has said, that she went through a depression of sorts in thinking about the enormity of the problems in which she was addressing. Writing a book on Climate Change came out of that, and perhaps was a way for her to move past, and beyond the despair.

Pluto · Post by **Pluto** » Thu May 07, 2015 3:40 pm

henry quirk wrote:The climate changes: it's a dynamic, on-going, system...it never was, and never will be, static.

The question is: how much is mankind driving or directing this change?

Certainly, mankind has an effect but my bet is we aren't (currently) the prime driver of climate change (which has an inertia and pattern predating mankind).

At best: our industry speeds up (slightly) what happens naturally (or, slows down [slightly] what happens naturally).

I'm thinkin' the boat we're in (sinkin' or not) would 'be' the boat we're in no matter what mankind did (or does).

So: I don't deny what is obvious...I can't, however, pin the tail (the blame) on the donkey (mankind).

Simply: there is no blame to lay...nature is just an amoral bitch...she doesn't work for us.

This is both helpful and a sensible position to take I think.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Thu May 07, 2015 3:44 pm

"Have you read the "Scientists' warning to humanity" article I posted earlier on this thread?"

Yes. I was not moved (any more than you were moved, I'm guessin', by the letter posted at the beginning of this thread).

*shrug*

#

"This is both helpful and a sensible position to take I think."

Yep...

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Thu May 07, 2015 4:04 pm

Pluto wrote:This is both helpful and a sensible position to take I think.

...and somewhat convenient.

No blame...no change...business as usual.

marjoram_blues · Post by **marjoram_blues** » Thu May 07, 2015 4:10 pm

Ned wrote:
Pluto wrote:This is both helpful and a sensible position to take I think.
...and somewhat convenient.

No blame...no change...business as usual.

You don't have to find someone to blame in order to change.

Pluto · Post by **Pluto** » Thu May 07, 2015 4:19 pm

Ned wrote:
Pluto wrote:This is both helpful and a sensible position to take I think.
...and somewhat convenient.

No blame...no change...business as usual.

No, there are great problems. Not business as usual.

Hobbes' Choice · Post by **Hobbes' Choice** » Thu May 07, 2015 4:26 pm

henry quirk wrote:The climate changes: it's a dynamic, on-going, system...it never was, and never will be, static.

The question is: how much is mankind driving or directing this change?

Certainly, mankind has an effect but my bet is we aren't (currently) the prime driver of climate change (which has an inertia and pattern predating mankind).

At best: our industry speeds up (slightly) what happens naturally (or, slows down [slightly] what happens naturally).

I'm thinkin' the boat we're in (sinkin' or not) would 'be' the boat we're in no matter what mankind did (or does).

So: I don't deny what is obvious...I can't, however, pin the tail (the blame) on the donkey (mankind).

Simply: there is no blame to lay...nature is just an amoral bitch...she doesn't work for us.

One thing for sure is that the obsession with CO2 is way overblown. We have contributed no more than 0,01% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years, and no one has the guts to reveal what is the magical property of atmospheric carbon that makes it able to bear ALL THE BLAME for GW.

The international capitalist establishment is making money selling "Carbon Credits", and pointing the finger at emerging nations, but why aren't we paying more attention to the destruction of the rain-forests and oceans?

Ned · Post by **Ned** » Thu May 07, 2015 4:34 pm

Pluto wrote:No, there are great problems. Not business as usual.

I am afraid this debate is going in the direction of: "yes, it is!"---"No it isn't"--"yes, it is!"---"No it isn't"--"yes, it is!"---"No it isn't"--"yes, it is!"---"No it isn't"--

I think enough evidence has been provided by various posters, and suggestions for further research, so everybody can follow them up and come to some personal conclusion.

I believe most of us are already doing it.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:14 pm

"I believe most of us are already doing it."

I made up my mind a long time back (on this subject and many others).

Offer something (I might find) compelling and I'll consider it.

As of now: nuthin' (of the opposing view) in this thread moves me.

vegetariantaxidermy · Post by **vegetariantaxidermy** » Thu May 07, 2015 8:05 pm

henry quirk wrote:"I believe most of us are already doing it."

I made up my mind a long time back (on this subject and many others).

Offer something (I might find) compelling and I'll consider it.

As of now: nuthin' (of the opposing view) in this thread moves me.

It takes as little effort to write 'nothing' as it does 'nuthin''. Just 'sayin''. With all your *shrugging*, lethargy, and 'I don't give a shit about anything' demeanour, I'm beginning to think you are close to falling into a coma.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Thu May 07, 2015 8:09 pm

Tell you what veg: if my means and method offend you, stop reading me.

Philosophy Now Forum

Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re:

Re: Climate Change

Re:

Re: Climate Change

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change