More temperature lies

angelica

My personal view stems more from acknowledgment that "science is THE truth" is an illusion.

There are so many forces and natural phenomena that we describe and talk about. And to do so is highly complementary to understanding all of life and nature.

The problem comes in when people take the maps we have used in science, to explain these natural forces, to actually BE the natural forces. They are not the same thing. We can completely depend on practical application of what we've uncovered with science...and yet, we're still mesmerized by electricity, or what we've uncovered through quantum physics! We can get results over and over, and still not exactly understand what is going on beyond our maps! The map is not to be confused with the territory!

Scientism asks that humans submit to the 'truth of science'... those who push the 'truth of science' expect people to submit to it, and to give up philosophy or spirituality as ways of, alongside science, understanding our lives, environments, and where to go in making our choices in each moments. It's just not practical. Or realistic.

Science on the other hand is an amazing tool to use. And it accomplishes what philosophy and spirituality cannot. In a whole universe, we must integrate all together wholly, into the big picture.

If humans output something far, far beyond 'basic science' and that represents all of who they are, I see that as being healthy, integrated and entirely realistic. Whereas for humans to rather align to a linear thought process of idealogy is not whole, or healthy.

When people start to wake up to their own power, and realize in each moment what they do in practical terms, beyond the science....that pollutes and damages our environment, there will be no turning back--they will be happy to take responsibility and make change within and without. Adding fear or external control, imo, is not a solution at all, but rather exacerbates the problem. Also, adding external control gives the individual the false impression that things are 'taken care of' so they can happily continue in their sense of complacency.

jeffbr

saveuplife wrote:

Why has it gone from "global warming" to "climate change"?]

That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.

El_Kabong

jeffbr wrote:

That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.

or pollution, which is what the focus should really be on

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

Why has it gone from "global warming" to "climate change"?]

Climate is defined as: Climate is the average weather usually taken over a 30-year time period for a particular region and time period.

By definition, it's always changing.

because the significance of the impact of global warming is global climate change ... what we should be concerned about is the mass flooding that has occured around the world; the droughts; the extreme temperature fluctuations; they all have correlated impacts to our lives and the world we live in ... similar to someone dumping a barrel of toxic waste into a river - there are impacts ...

jeffbr

El_Kabong wrote:

or pollution, which is what the focus should really be on

I completely agree with that. I'm on board with this line of thinking:

kann wrote:

Interesting article, but all of us are still waiting for conclusive evidence on both side of the fence. Nothing has disproved the unproven manmade global warming yet. Wait and see, and in the meanwhile, we could at least try to take care a care of our own environment as it's not at its best right now.

The problem is that the global warming hysteria can lead to crazy headed politics on both sides. Let's look at polution and deal with it and quit with the "point of no return" histrionics of Al Gore and Co.

hailhailkc

jeffbr wrote:

That's easy. Once warming trends stopped and cooling trends started showing up, "they" had to call it something else. Climate Change is an easy one, because no matter what day, year month, millenia, cause, cycle, etc... there will always be Climate Change. Nobody could possibly deny Climate Change.

Exactly. It's quite a bit like the guy on tv who supposedly communicates with the deceased relatives of families on his show.

TV Guy: "Jeffbr...I sense he was feeling...what's the right word...about something big in his life...something important...a big event...it's coming to me..."

Family Member: His upcoming wedding?!

TV Guy: YES!!! That's it!

Family Member: He was worried about it.

TV Guy: YES!!! Worried was the feeling I was getting!!!

polaris

angelica wrote:

One thing I can say is that those that make up the IPCC and who are peer reviewed each individually have their own personal agendas in each moment that influence what they see and what they interpret. That is a fact.

I can't paint them into categories of those with good intent and those with nefarious intent. As I know ALL people operate with unconscious drives all the time that influence what they see.

i understand your position ... but we are entering a realm that has no definitive meaning or action ...

as an environmentalist - i believe global climate change is the biggest issue facing life on this planet ... moreso than wealth distribution; imperialistic wars; etc ... this is based on my understanding of the issue at hand ... am i definitive source - definitely not ...

the issue tho is that success for me requires the efforts of the many not just the few ... we can have 75% agreement on actions for a problem but will not get anywhere if those 25% happen to be the biggest problem ... so, while we continue to "discuss" the same topic for the last 5 years - the problem is only getting worse ... so, the time for action is NOW ... so - there really isn't room at this stage in my mind for discussions of the perceived biases of various scientist's agenda ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

i understand your position ... but we are entering a realm that has no definitive meaning or action ...

as an environmentalist - i believe global climate change is the biggest issue facing life on this planet ... moreso than wealth distribution; imperialistic wars; etc ... this is based on my understanding of the issue at hand ... am i definitive source - definitely not ...

the issue tho is that success for me requires the efforts of the many not just the few ... we can have 75% agreement on actions for a problem but will not get anywhere if those 25% happen to be the biggest problem ... so, while we continue to "discuss" the same topic for the last 5 years - the problem is only getting worse ... so, the time for action is NOW ... so - there really isn't room at this stage in my mind for discussions of the perceived biases of various scientist's agenda ...

You yourself are saying that that problem is getting worse. What are you planning to do now to change that perpetuation of the problem and create actual change?

angelica

hailhailkc wrote:

Exactly. It's quite a bit like the guy on tv who supposedly communicates with the deceased relatives of families on his show.

TV Guy: "Jeffbr...I sense he was feeling...what's the right word...about something big in his life...something important...a big event...it's coming to me..."

Family Member: His upcoming wedding?!

TV Guy: YES!!! That's it!

Family Member: He was worried about it.

TV Guy: YES!!! Worried was the feeling I was getting!!!

polaris

angelica wrote:

You yourself are saying that that problem is getting worse. What are you planning to do now to change that perpetuation of the problem and create actual change?

well ... i do a lot of things but really that is irrelevant to this discussion ... problems only get solved when people acknowledge that problem exists ... that is the biggest obstacle to change now ...

LikeAnOcean

My opinion goes either way on global warming. I think we need to be worrying less about the temperature of the earth and more about the pollutions and extinctions we are causing. If we are the cause of Global warming or cooling, I'm sure its minimal. It was MUCH warmer during the age of the Dinosaurs and MUCH cooler during the Ice Age. The Earth is going to get warmer or cooler again either way. It will eventually all die as our sun burns out.

I think the biggest problem we have is over-population. We are running the planet dry of resources.

We've gone from 1 billion to 6 billion people in the last 100 years. If there were only 1/6 of how many people there are now, pollution and the worry of global warming wouldn't even be an issue. Thats just a few generations ago.

We are like a spreading disease. Wear a condom people!

Seriously, I'm only 30 and there were half as many people in the world as there are now when was born.

angelica

polaris wrote:

well ... i do a lot of things but really that is irrelevant to this discussion ... problems only get solved when people acknowledge that problem exists ... that is the biggest obstacle to change now ...

I find all people are open to the fact that our pollution is causing tangible signs of devastation around us. Even the staunchest anti-global-warming types realize we are doing deplorable things to the environment.

People do get up in arms about differences in ideology, though, and can go back and forth on that, while avoiding actual change. And certainly I see the psychological limits that create limited change in terms of output for most people..a lack of connecting with their environments in actuality, even though they understand the theory of why they 'should'. As well, this issue takes on major power struggle aspects--politically--people use this to further their own ego-based personal agendas against others, at the expense of the big picture (which is typical of ego) rather than creating actual problem-solving.

Royals32

I don't think anybody can deny that we are experiencing a great deal of climate change on this planet. It is evident in every part of the world at various levels of severity.

What these threads usually boil down to is not really whether or not it is happening, but why. I used to completely dismiss the notion that humanity has had the impact that people claim, and then I did some research and I had to back peddle a little but not all of my questions were answered. I'm no longer interested in getting into a heated debate about this, so I have a couple of questions that basic science should be able to answer in no time flat:

1. If what we are experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, why are there tropical plant and freshwater fish species in northern Alberta...If those species were able to survive in that region at some point in history, wouldn't that indicate that severe climate change has been a fact of life on this planet long before us people came around?

2. As someone posted earlier, and as I asked a long time ago in one of these threads, how does the IPCC explain that surface temperatures on other planets is also on the rise?

Kann

angelica wrote:

I find all people are open to the fact that our pollution is causing tangible signs of devastation around us. Even the staunchest anti-global-warming types realize we are doing deplorable things to the environment.

People do get up in arms about differences in ideology, though, and can go back and forth on that, while avoiding actual change. And certainly I see the psychological limits that create limited change in terms of output for most people..a lack of connecting with their environments in actuality, even though they understand the theory of why they 'should'. As well, this issue takes on major power struggle aspects--politically--people use this to further their own ego-based personal agendas against others, at the expense of the big picture (which is typical of ego) rather than creating actual problem-solving.

I think the biggest issue of all is still money, much more than ideology. To stop polluting like we're currently doing would cost a lot. Asking countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions is costly and some people do not think its worth it. In the end it's more a matter of actual money than ideology - look at kyoto for instance.

LikeAnOcean

Kann wrote:

I think the biggest issue of all is still money, much more than ideology. To stop polluting like we're currently doing would cost a lot. Asking countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions is costly and some people do not think its worth it. In the end it's more a matter of actual money than ideology - look at kyoto for instance.

Minimizing it is great and all, but if we cut polluting in half, but there are twice as many people on the planet 20 years from now, no good will come from it.. I think the source of the problem is over-population.

polaris

Royals32 wrote:

I don't think anybody can deny that we are experiencing a great deal of climate change on this planet. It is evident in every part of the world at various levels of severity.

What these threads usually boil down to is not really whether or not it is happening, but why. I used to completely dismiss the notion that humanity has had the impact that people claim, and then I did some research and I had to back peddle a little but not all of my questions were answered. I'm no longer interested in getting into a heated debate about this, so I have a couple of questions that basic science should be able to answer in no time flat:

1. If what we are experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, why are there tropical plant and freshwater fish species in northern Alberta...If those species were able to survive in that region at some point in history, wouldn't that indicate that severe climate change has been a fact of life on this planet long before us people came around?

2. As someone posted earlier, and as I asked a long time ago in one of these threads, how does the IPCC explain that surface temperatures on other planets is also on the rise?

1. Continental drift - we used to be one continent. Having said that - yes, climate has fluctuated historically but we're talking thousands upon thousands of years ... the real drastic changes all have been explained through some natural occurence ... the issue now is that we are the trigger and it is happening at a much faster rate ...

2. I don't think the IPCC is concerned as much with stuff on other planets ... at the end of the day - we are still discovering planets ... measurement tools to measure planetary surface temperatures can infer a multitude of reasonings ...

Royals32

polaris wrote:

I don't think the IPCC is concerned as much with stuff on other planets ...

Wow. I guess that's basic science at its best.

polaris

Royals32 wrote:

Wow. I guess that's basic science at its best.

it's a panel of climate scientists ... you're dealing with a lot of intagibles when it comes to planetary studies ... they are nowhere near as advanced as the science we have on our own planet ...

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

because the significance of the impact of global warming is global climate change ... what we should be concerned about is the mass flooding that has occured around the world; the droughts; the extreme temperature fluctuations; they all have correlated impacts to our lives and the world we live in ... similar to someone dumping a barrel of toxic waste into a river - there are impacts ...

Let's take the argument away from climate change for a second, and focus on pollution. I don't for one second think pollution is acceptable. I think picking up trash is great. I think recycling is fantastic. That said, global warming/global climate change/global whatever is questionable IMHO and a number of other's opinions. According to many people's logic (and your's I believe), global climate change is supposedly a function of pollution. This is where I get lost in this debate.

Pollution is the "source" of the problem, according to you and people who agree with you, pollution IS the problem according to me and people who side with me. Why can't we just agree to fight to constrain pollution and not need to dwell into the scare tactics of global warming? I don't think anyone would deny that dumping is bad. Stick to that route and you're more likely to get people on board. IMHO the problem comes in when people want to shut down the capitalist society for environmental reasons. IMHO things pollution should be limited and I believe markets are the best way to handle the problem. Pay to pollute may not sound attractive, but I bet it would constrain things. IMHO the environmentalist front is sometimes (actually many times) used as an attack on capitalism.... therefore, a number of people aren't sincere in thier attachment to the environment, instead they are using it for a political agenda.

Lastly, the only other issue I have with this whole debate is simple: If we can "change the climate" one way (which I don't believe we can), why can't we change it back the other? If for some reason, we have the ability to alter climates, why can't we alter them back to normalcy? That side of the debate says we can change things..... therefore, we have climate control, just not a very good one yet. I don't think one can say "we can make it bad, but can't make it better". Yes, the technology may not be there, but who's to say it can't or couldn't ever be there?

Royals32

polaris wrote:

it's a panel of climate scientists ... you're dealing with a lot of intagibles when it comes to planetary studies ... they are nowhere near as advanced as the science we have on our own planet ...

Ok, fair enough. One thing I know is that I don't know enough about it to debate the topic.

My final thoughts on the subject. Ok, not my thoughts but whatever...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0