• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists

Heyo

Veteran Member
Sounds like you're running into the same problem I got. We're hearing lots of folks saying their statements are "scientific", while they lack the minimum scientific rigor.
Who has posted links to respected science journals and who has not?
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
and your statement in previous post is unqualified and wrong. CO2 is relevant .. to the gas equation of our atmosphere for example. ...
--and not relevant to the question of temperature measurement and definitions of processes. I'm hearing folks say that the earth's temp has gone up 1.5C since 1880 because of human activity's effect on the greenhouse process. That statement is preposterous no matter what CO2 does.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
My position is that from my vantage point I'm hearing some saying that the earth has warmed by 1.5C over the past one or two centuries because of the greenhouse effect of human activity. That statement is impossible and preposterous and I can show you why it's rediculous if you're interested.
I'm not.
You are not a scientist, let alone an active climate scientist. ...
While I like to think I'm important, I don't see how my nature affects the earth's temperature. Regardless of me being a bad guy, do you agree w/ the idea that the earth is 1.5C hotter than it was in 1880? Please answer w/ a "yes" or a "no".
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, while there are still questions about the details,

There always will be as scientific research is dynamic, not static.
"tipping points"

2 C is considered that likely point as the greatest danger after that is the melting of the permafrost in the Arctic that will increasingly release massive tons of methane gas that's 20 times more heat "absorbent" than CO2.
And the scientists agree that what the politicians are willing to do is by far not enough.

Absolutely correct, especially since this has become so highly politicized here in the States and in many other countries.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, I live in the Detroit area, and since 1970 our average yearly temperature has risen 4 F. And we are not alone.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
"Water policy recommendations have been proposed recently. Water ecosystem pollution is a very serious issue"

I can't believe you just stated this nonsensical non answer to the problems stated. Water Policy recomendations due to water exosystem pollution being a very serious issue was the case in the 1970's and every decade since then.

What part of "Those Policies did the exact opposite of what was intended and/or did not address the main factors contributing to both CO2 and Ocean pollution" did you not understand ..

Your claim that that the comparison is like cancer to aids is nonsensical deflection down some unqualified rabbit hole .. The lipstick on a pig CO2 Policy is directly related to the increase in Ocean Pollution .. having nothing to do the difference between cancer and aids.

I did not say warming was not a serious risk -- so why are you pretending otherwise .. lacking the ability to address the fact that Ocean Pollution is also a risk .. but one not being taken seriously like "global warming" ?

what part of "Not in my back yard - Dump it in the Ocean" --- is our environmental policy --- are you having trouble accepting and coming to grips with ? a policy which seeks to increase both CO2 and Ocean Pollution at the same time.
The report I linked to stated that immediate action is needed to solve the problems including:-


  • Transition rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy – wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power
  • Prevent mercury pollution of the oceans by eliminating coal combustion and controlling all industrial uses of mercury.
  • End plastic pollution of the oceans by reducing plastic production and imposing a global ban on production of single-use plastic.
  • Promote effective waste management and recycling
  • Reduce agricultural releases of nitrogen, phosphorus and animal waste; industrial discharges; and releases of human sewage into coastal waters.
  • Support robust monitoring of ocean pollution.
  • Extend regional and international marine pollution control programs to all countries.
  • Support research programs that increase knowledge of the extent, severity and human health impacts of ocean pollution.
  • Create, expand and safeguard Marine Protected Areas.

Do you disagree with any of these? I fully agree with you that an enforceable international treaty for curbing marine and estuarine pollution is urgently needed. I was just saying that reports like the one I linked by an international group of scientists would hopefully be a key first step towards that goal.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Huh. If I put a thermometer and a chunk of lead over a fire, I'd bet (my own money) the lead would melt with an observed temp. within a degree of 327.5C. What kind of climate prediction we got? Sure, you could say any prediction I suggested would be just "weather" and not climate, while any daily high above some average is tooted as proof of AGW.

That's politics. I'm into observation and analysis, not endless words.
An observation does not make a science. People from time immemorial could record when the sun is setting or rising in the given day of the year. That did not translate into the science of astronomy till we could predict the motion of the planets and the sun accurately using the geocentric model and the laws of gravity after 17th century. Same difference between merely recording when a substance melts and the science of melting.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
While I like to think I'm important, I don't see how my nature affects the earth's temperature. Regardless of me being a bad guy, do you agree w/ the idea that the earth is 1.5C hotter than it was in 1880? Please answer w/ a "yes" or a "no".
I think I was very clear on that matter, that I follow the scientific consensus. So, it is a "yes". The only caveat is that you haven't specified a confidence interval (as I have asked you to do), so I won't agree that you have proven the scientific community wrong if you can conclusively show that it is 1.6°.

Waiting for your links to studies published in respected journals.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nobody would disagree w/ that. At the same time we need to agree that science requires observation and that w/o observation science is on hold.
I did not disagree with that. But I stated that the science of melting is far less well understood than the science of climate change. This I can easily show if you need me to.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
In the 1970's only about 60% of scientists saw global warming, with the rest either seeing global cooling or no change. How come the consensus back then did not see the obvious trend, that the current consensus of science, feeds us as self evident to anyone?
Did you look at the graph you posted?
Can this appearance of enhanced global warming be attributed to changes in technology, seeing more data
That's very unlikely, improvements in technology would not consistently over-estimate global temperature...the trend is real (as is now, in the 21st century very, very obvious indeed), technology has improved precision not skewed the data.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
Well yes, sort of, but I must admit I find this rather an axe-grinding, yoghourt-weaving take on the situation.

I find it unhelpful to talk in terms of "manipulation" by evil capitalist marketers. There is a danger of outsourcing ownership of the problem to some convenient “other” that can be demonised, instead of acknowledging that it is our own behaviours and lifestyles that need to be addressed. (This happens with climate change for example, which is too often blamed on evil oil companies when in reality it is the way we have chosen to live that is primarily responsible, not to mention the influence of Henry Ford and his successors.) I’m sure the researchers are right about consumerism in modern society being a problem. It is though quite hard to see what practically can be done about this in a free society. The suggestion, hinted at, that society should abandon economic growth, strikes me as completely unrealistic. And if they are arguing to abandon the free society, they will have an uphill struggle.

Regarding population, as they themselves semi-concede later in the piece, the solution to population growth is education and social emancipation of women - and access to contraception of course. This is improving all the time anyway. The UN forecast is that a maximum population will be reached by 2050 or so on current trends. In fact we have population decline in many developed countries, to the point that leaders are worrying about how to increase the birth rate. The researchers, at least as reported in the newspaper article, do not seem to engage with these factors.

So, while they make some useful observations, I find the tone of this smells rather of politics, which is a pity as it will turn people off. But maybe that is just the way the Grauniad has reported it: they have a considerable stable of axe-gringing, yoghourt-weaving journalists after all.

"This happens with climate change for example, which is too often blamed on evil oil companies when in reality it is the way we have chosen to live that is primarily responsible" Chosen?

Who's at fault for car pollution? Is it the people who need to use cars to drive to their jobs so that they can make enough money to survive, or is it the fault of 1) their jobs for stigmatizing workers that use public transport and 2) the car and oil companies who buy up patents for more eco-friendly designs only to intentionally not use them, artificially creating more demand for oil and worsening the problem?

When it comes to grocery bags, who's at fault? The company that produces the plastic bags and the store front which uses them by default, or the single mom trying to raise 3 kids on an income that would put her below the poverty line even if she was living alone?

When it comes to nonrenewable energy plants, who's at fault, the coal plant lobbyists who attack the public image of more renewable power sources and undermine their efforts to get cleaner energy established, or the underpaid, overworked coal miners trying to make ends meet?

It's pretty straightforward, I think. The people in power want to muddy the issue by blaming it on everyone underneath them. "It's not my fault for opening a sweat shop; it's my customers' fault for unknowingly buying my wares and voting for sweat shops with their wallet. We're both equally accountable!" I don't think so.

You can carpool, recycle, become a Mennonite hermit, whatever, but none of that is going to make a difference. Why? Because the problem isn't what your average person is doing. The problem is what they've been forced into by those above them.

Would it kill an oil baron to switch to the clean energy industry? Would it kill a company to let their employees work remotely from home? No. Would it kill someone living paycheck to paycheck to stop commuting to work out of protest for the environment? Quite possibly.

So who really holds the power and, thus, the responsibility here? Why are we blaming the people who are powerless to do anything about the situation and not the people who have the power to make a difference but instead choose to worsen the issue in order to profit themselves?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You can carpool, recycle, become a Mennonite hermit, whatever, but none of that is going to make a difference. Why? Because the problem isn't what your average person is doing.

There are things we can do at the individual level, and one thing we can do is vote for those who actually accept the evidence and decide to gradually do somethings about it.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Their take is correct that a climate crisis does exist and it's caused by people being manipulated. Where I differ is that the "overshoot" they mention is the over reaction to an unproven geophysical danger and this mindless hysteria is what's feeding the elites.

The good news is that this appears to be mostly noise from a few. Most folks live their lives and ignore the climate silliness.

We ignore overshoot at the peril of most living things on earth.

Just start by explaining how we'll survive when we've drained our fresh water aquifers and depleted our topsoil?

There are many more critical problems, but just those two should be sufficient to scare the crap out of anyone who's really done their homework.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
We ignore overshoot at the peril of most living things on earth.

Just start by explaining how we'll survive when we've drained our fresh water aquifers and depleted our topsoil?

There are many more critical problems, but just those two should be sufficient to scare the crap out of anyone who's really done their homework.

The problem imo is we have developed a culture of freedom. The freedom to do what you want, identify as who you want, go where you want, buy what you want. Freedom is resource intensive. The idea of the article is to try and manipulate this culture. Using media, entertainment, advertising to get people to desire less freedom.

Freedom equals happiness. That belief is causing a resource crisis.

I suspect the fear of losing our freedoms is greater than the fear of any coming environmental crisis.

I think you would need to culture the belief that "managed care" equal happiness. IOW, someone/something else sees to your needs not you. Giving up your freedom now means giving up your happiness.

Good luck trying to convince people that freedom is bad for them.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem imo is we have developed a culture of freedom. The freedom to do what you want, identify as who you want, go where you want, buy what you want. Freedom is resource intensive. The idea of the article is to try and manipulate this culture. Using media, entertainment, advertising to get people to desire less freedom.

Freedom equals happiness. That belief is causing a resource crisis.

I suspect the fear of losing our freedoms is greater than the fear of any coming environmental crisis.

I think you would need to culture the belief that "managed care" equal happiness. IOW, someone/something else sees to your needs not you. Giving up your freedom now means giving up your happiness.

Good luck trying to convince people that freedom is bad for them.
Don't ignore Maslow's hierarchy. Impoverished people can't afford freedom, even if it's open to them. Worried or insecure people will choose security over freedom.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
We ignore overshoot at the peril of most living things on earth.

Just start by explaining how we'll survive when we've drained our fresh water aquifers and depleted our topsoil?
My first reaction was to engage you w/ topsoil and aquifers but that's a think-process that I don't find bouncing around w/ various subjects to be useful. The geophysical process that I mentioned is the supposed catastrophic global warming that many talk about --and until I see hard measurements supporting that warming I'll have to peg this topic w/ stories about clairvoyance that talking to the dead. It may be true but it's unproven.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Good luck trying to convince people that freedom is bad for them.

A lot of it would depend on how one defines "freedom." It's a relative term where "too much freedom" can be just as bad or harmful as "not enough freedom." Trying to strike that elusive balance and middle ground is the real tricky part, it seems.

There are quite a few people I encounter who don't believe we have any real freedom at all. They don't fear losing their freedom because they never believed they had it to begin with.

Then there are others who see freedom more as an insular safety bubble, protected by the well-armed, well-financed, and well-equipped personnel of the US military and law enforcement community. They advocate policies which address and deal with any perceived threats to our freedom, foreign or domestic. It's almost as if people have been driven to give up their freedom in order to preserve it.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
A lot of it would depend on how one defines "freedom." It's a relative term where "too much freedom" can be just as bad or harmful as "not enough freedom." Trying to strike that elusive balance and middle ground is the real tricky part, it seems.

There are quite a few people I encounter who don't believe we have any real freedom at all. They don't fear losing their freedom because they never believed they had it to begin with.

Doesn't mean they don't want it.

Then there are others who see freedom more as an insular safety bubble, protected by the well-armed, well-financed, and well-equipped personnel of the US military and law enforcement community. They advocate policies which address and deal with any perceived threats to our freedom, foreign or domestic. It's almost as if people have been driven to give up their freedom in order to preserve it.

Isn't that the idea?
Convince people to give up their freedom, except in this case to preserve the planet?
 
Top