Philosophy Now Forum

Global climate change is of course a controversial topic. I saw part of a debate on IQ2 where the issue under contention was whether or not global warming is a "crisis". http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debate ... t-a-crisis. The debate was not on whether global warming exists or on whether it is human created but whether it is a "crisis". Apparently after the debate was over, most of the audience at the debate voted that global warming is NOT a crisis. Is that maybe "wishful thinking" or are those who are concerned about global warming just "alarmists", running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling when it is not?

The global climate change debate seems to come down to 3 all important questions.

1. Is the climate changing? The unequivocal answer at this point seems to be "yes". Does anyone anymore really believe the climate isn't changing?

2. Is the change being caused by human activity? This seems to be a point of some contention. My "gut reaction" is to think that it is because of human activity. It seems sort of obvious to me that human activity must be having some sort of impact on the world around us, given the scale of the changes we are affecting on the planet. But maybe this is some sort of unfounded assumption on my part (as well as on the part of many climate scientists apparently)?

3. Will the changes be generally harmful? Again my gut instinct is to believe "yes". Even if we humans could survive such a cataclysm, is it fair to consider the changes "unharmful" if many other organisms and creatures on earth are destroyed? Are we humans the only thing that matters?

As I stated above the global climate change debate is a controversial topic and seems to stir deep and strong emotions in some of us. I know it stirs strong emotions in me. I guess my tendency is to become angry toward those who are not concerned about climate change. I think to myself, what kind of "ogre" walks around unconcerned about all the changes that are happening to our planet. Clearly many species are in danger of extinction and global climate change will add considerably to this calamity. It seems extremely callous and unconscionable to not care about the havoc we are wrecking on other species. But some people really just don't seem to care. Some people seem to be content to pave the earth over and eliminate every last vestige of nature. But perhaps I am wrong to feel resentful toward those who feel that way about nature.

Gary Childress wrote:Will the changes be generally harmful?

Yes, of that there is no doubt. For example, the conflict in Syria is the kind of harmful consequence we can expect to see more of in the near future. Climate change key in Syrian conflict | The Independent

Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment. There is no such thing as a 'normal' climate, and when you consider the northern hemisphere was under a mile of ice just 10,000 years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The climate is changing, of that there is little doubt, except by those with their heads in the sand.

Human activity is an influence in the current climate change, how much, is the factor that is debatable.

In the past the climate has usually been warmer and wetter, or colder and drier. Why should it be any different this time, and a warmer and wetter climate would mean more growth and plenty of everything. I would suggest that the political fear-mongers are doing so for their own political mileage, and not for anything else of substance.

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment.

Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

thedoc wrote:

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment.

Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

Do you what coral reefs are? Or the white cliffs of Dover?

thedoc wrote:

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment.

Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

You can keep telling yourself that, as you are gasping your last breath when all the drinkable water has run out.

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment. There is no such thing as a 'normal' climate, and when you consider the northern hemisphere was under a mile of ice just 10,000 years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Where are you getting this information from?

Melchior wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment.

Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

Do you what coral reefs are? Or the white cliffs of Dover?

Time is a factor, or do you believe that the earth has only been here for 6000 years, in that case there is no point in talking to you.

Gary Childress wrote:

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment. There is no such thing as a 'normal' climate, and when you consider the northern hemisphere was under a mile of ice just 10,000 years ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Where are you getting this information from?

Common, 50 shades of brown, knowledge.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Melchior wrote:Everything changes everything else. The question is whether the 'picture' painted by climate-change holocaust predicters is a plausible or accurate one. The answer is no. The human capability to alter the climate is infinitesimally smaller than that of natural forces, so much so that to speak of a 'crisis' brought on by human activity is a farcical piece of nonsense. Humans are only a minute population on the planet compared to bats, ants, fish, and many other creatures, every one of which has some effect on the environment.

Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

You can keep telling yourself that, as you are gasping your last breath when all the drinkable water has run out.

The last time I looked, the water cycle provides a constant supply of clean, fresh water, and with a warmer climate, it will only get better.

BTW, is Al Gore your hero?

thedoc wrote: The last time I looked, the water cycle provides a constant supply of clean, fresh water, and with a warmer climate, it will only get better.

BTW, is Al Gore your hero?

I don't have 'heroes'. The rest is too silly to respond to.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have 'heroes'. The rest is too silly to respond to.

Perhaps this will help the silliness? Even sillier, you might learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote: BTW, is Al Gore your hero?

I don't have 'heroes'.

Odd, your fear-mongering sounds just like his.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote: Humans might be present on the planet in smaller numbers but the effect that humans have on the environment is all out of proportion to their numbers. Technology, (that other species do not use) has given humans the ability to alter the environment in ways that other living creatures cannot. In fact most other living creatures don't change the environment so much as just try to cope with it and live in the environment.

You can keep telling yourself that, as you are gasping your last breath when all the drinkable water has run out.

The last time I looked, the water cycle provides a constant supply of clean, fresh water, and with a warmer climate, it will only get better.

I don't know. According to the article below. Fresh water may become a problem if the planet warms.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... atives.htm

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail.

EDIT: And then there are of course regions in danger of drought.