Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
My PPoV is that there are too many facts that prove that climate will change in future.
The more important question is the portion of climate change that is man made. Is it essential enough that we are an important factor of that change and are we able by changing our behavior to slow down that process?
No one has proven that mankind is the main cause of climate change with certainty, but also no one has disproven that climate change is caused of climate change with certainty.
I see only a lot of interpretations of whats going on in a way to defend the own point of view, either to affirm or refuse the hypothesis of mankind as cause of climate change.
My view is to use the same way of thinking as Blaise Pascal applied. How shall we deal with uncertainty when we are able to choose and a wrong decision can have a fatal consequence?
In that case of climate change:
Reduce all activity that has an negative impact to our environment with the chance to slow down climate change
business as usual with a unknown certainty that future generations of humans will pay the price for our actions?
A little more self-restriction for todays generation vs. huge personal restrictions forced by the natural environment.
And there is one important aspect: Laws defined by humans are changeable, the laws of nature aren't.
It's our choice...
Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.
To comment on the whole energy debate, I do think it's possible to convert to forms of energy other than fossil fuels and still have a good economy, not that we have a choice since we will run out anyways (of fossil fuels). I don't think it's possible to convert solely to what is termed 'renewable' energy, you need nuclear (fission or fusion, though the latter is not avaliable yet despite being very promising from what I can tell) and hyrdoelectric to pick up the slack since wind and solar depend too much on variable factors at this point. But I do think you can have both a good economy and preservation of things like biodiversity and the climate.
I guess what gets me is when some environmental advocates, the more radical ones at least, seem to dismiss economic concerns entirely. Greta said it herself in the speech she gave recently in NYC when she called economic growth a "fairy tale". I get that you need more radical people not so much to get things done, but to remind the more moderate folks of a given ideology of what their principles are and keep them from being too wishy washy and complacent. I just don't agree that politcians aeren't doing anything wrt to climate change, you could argue it's not enough, but going to extreme too fast would damage the economy, and I think policians are aware of that, and not only wrt to how it affects their careers but also how it would affect our societies. I'm not a big fan of politicians, but I do get what they seem to be doing here, I think Greta is wrong when she says they don't care and tries to get them to follow exactly what she prescribes. Emmanuel Macron's response to her comments, mainly that the kind of radicalism she espouses can antagonzie our societies (if it's taken too literally) seem spot on.
Neither the dismissal of the climate in the name of the economy nor the dismissal of the economy in the name of climate are founded positions to hold.
Last edited by Uncle Ave; 10-01-2019 at 08:48 PM.
But why would there be a coordinated effort to exaggerate the effects of climate change in the first place? Some of the claims surrounding climate change are indeed exaggerated―we're probably not going to go extinct as a species, for instance, and I do hope that no serious scientists are saying that. But if there is 97% consensus among experts that it's happening, and that its effects will be significant to the way our societies are organized―for the worse―then, surely, that has to raise a red flag.
Suppose there are hidden motives at play. If we're allowed to dismiss someone's argument based on a possible nefarious agenda, then we're allowed to dismiss the other side using the exact same precedent.
This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.
Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?
The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
(Carl Jung on Si)
But if that forms the basis for dismissing the arguments of climate advocates, then climate change skeptics should also be dismissed for doing the same thing. Mankind's right to exploit the planet for its own benefit is often claimed by these people; whether or not that's true, it has parallels with the old testament theme of the conquest of Canaan, the promised land which was given by God for the Israelites to usurp. Yet another oft-invoked theme is the limited agency of man to alter the natural world. This is plainly false, but it is analogous to the mythological theme of the smallness of mankind in the face of an omnipotent deity.
Virtually every issue that becomes political is quickly wrapped in one or another mythological cloak, not just climate change, and emotionally-laden arguments abound everywhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately), facts don't care about our feelings.
Last edited by xerxe; 10-02-2019 at 08:06 PM.
Put it this way: there has been a general warming trend shown since the 1880s until today. In what manner that will change in the future and by how much is still up for debate. So far the models produced haven't been shown to be accurate enough to say.
I was also under the impression that the Chinese government was taking climate change very seriously. It (along with India) has planted an enormous number of trees to combat deforestation. It's also in the process of imposing severe restrictions and regulations on what can be built.
It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination―China continues to build polluting industries and energy generation facilities. But, over the past several years, Chinese emissions from growth have remained neutral, and China is on track to meet its Paris 2020 targets. It has also become the leading manufacturer of renewable energy technology (like solar panels).
I didn't know that. I'll definitely look into the allegation that the IPCC promotes research selectively. But is the IPCC the only authoritative source? This page from NASA's website lists a number of other authoritative bodies that make the same claims about climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.In other words, no, I don't think studies and data should be dismissed out of hand because of possible political motives. But, there isn't actually a consensus. There's a lot of data and studies against the models produced and the numbers projected by global warming enthusiasts. I keep seeing it quoted that 99% of scientists agree, etc. but then you look into this and you see that the IPCC just removes dissenting opinions because their whole GOAL is a consensus. They have to present a unified front.
A lot of times when you look not at the headlines, but the actual studies behind the headlines you see a slightly different picture from what's being presented. Sometimes that picture only vaguely resembles the headlines.
Of course, this methodology is questionable.
And yes, there is manipulation of the masses being commited by the IPCC, because they make claims in a way that are emotional and reductionistic in order to create fear/panic in the average citizen in order for people to accept certain policies. This is typical of environmental causes. For example, the polar bear and giant panda being used as mascots for saving biodviersity, when neither species is essential to it in comparison to insects, algae, fish, etc which have less emotional appeal as mascots. I'm not a fan of saying things for emotional effect so I agree that such methods are questionable, and that it's turning science into propaganda. Propaganda does not have to be ill-intended in order to qualify as such, and its consequences can be good, bad or neutral.
I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".
Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.
I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f24kR3hGaQ0 TL;DW: Probably ok for occasional consumption, but has some worrying ingredients.
I love animals and have seriously considered veganism, or at least vegetarianism. And modern animal farming is often not only cruel and debasing to our humanity, but very harmful to the immediate and greater environment. That said, I have discovered my personal biology requires a certain amount of animal products for optimal health. And from what I've been learning, a well-raised animal is going to enhance the environment, not destroy it (e.g. poop that becomes fertilizer that makes for better crops, and less farting). It will also have magnitudes greater nutrients.
If I'm going to eat an animal, I want it to have the best life it can and to die as painlessly as possible. Not only is that humane but it's becoming more and more obviously practical.
My in-laws are considering purchasing a couple of steers to raise for meat. If they do, I plan on visiting the cows, loving on them as much as they'll let me, and assisting with making their lives good. They will live in a big field with lots of grass and eat apples from hundred-year-old trees for dessert. And when we kill them I will cry. I will honor them by facing what I do, and by not wasting what they offer. The modern popular cuts are only a part of the sustenance a whole cow can provide. Healthy cow liver has invaluable nutrients, particularly if a woman wants to be pregnant / have kids. Bones and connective tissues make collagen-rich broth. Etc.
Looking away from death makes it easier to do.
All of that said, I do eat mostly plant foods. Thankfully while I need animal products, they're more like supplements/sides than main dishes.
INFj / EII / FiNe
"Have courage and be kind." - Cinderella's mom
"Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue." - Francis Thompson
Last edited by inumbra; 01-10-2020 at 01:25 PM.
Everything happens for a reason.
I listened to an interview she did on NPR as well as the one linked in post #16. She strikes me as archetypally Beta. Very passionate and expressive even for someone with Asperger's.
I glanced through previous comments and saw it mentioned that she claims to be a realist who focuses on the facts. With all due respect to Ethical types, she would not be the first to overestimate and exaggerate her rationality. Especially in service of a cause she holds near and dear to her heart. I think what she demonstrates in her actions, especially her conviction about the utility of symbolic action, rather than taking the truly pragmatic approach of finishing school to become a climate scientist or lobbyist with tangible authority and influence points to her being an ethical intuitive.
I think EIE is compelling.
She VI's as an LSI 1w2