Information

Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 46
Latest Activity: on Sunday

Reference/Research Sites

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 11:47pm

Science, economics, politics. Whew! Three separate leather boots, a lot a chew on all at once in such a fast pace. I tried listening again but with a slower speed.  That just made me laugh; chipmunk sounds! 

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 11:23pm

Because I was unsuccessful in posting a gif of Climate spirals before, I am going to share the link. This is an updated version with a new element of the 3rd dimension. 

Comment by Daniel W on June 21, 2016 at 10:23pm

I wish there was a way to decouple some topics from ideologies.  It's often easy to predict how people respond to ideas or events, based on unrelated things.  Views about a scientific concept should not be predictable by what someone beleives about, say, economic or political theory.  But those views often can be prediced by those other traits.

That is not to say that everyone is in lockstep with their political idols.  It's just something that I think about

In the video below, a concept that begins at about 6:17 might explain some of the reason.  It's an interesting  video in general, although the presenter talks too fast for an old guy like me.

What she describes is part of the neurological and neurohormonal ways that a brain processes unwelcome information.  Among other things, unwelcome information - which can mean facts / ideas / ideology - is processed in part in the amygdala, which is a more primitive part of the brain.  This rerouted processing reasults in resistance to change, an emotional rather than rational response.  That can occur when talking about religion / atheist (this video) but also climate change, political candidate, or guns.   It's interesting to think about.

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 9:40pm

Čenek Sekavec

I agree, it is irrelevant if humans cause climate change. What is at stake is that we understand climate change occurs, that humans play a part, if not all of the cause, and we need to take heed. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 21, 2016 at 9:32pm

I do not advocate thought police, or criminalising unpopular ideas, or silencing dissenters. 

My point is that the KKK, the Aryan Nation, the fight to get control over DDT, the acknowledgement of the Ozone hole, corralling of tobacco smoke, the recognition of acid rain did not come about because people denied others' rights to free speech. These sorts of attitudes and behaviors faltered in the face of consequences of actions. 

The KKK lost the largest judgment ever awarded against a hate group, when a jury in S.C. in 1998, ordered the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, its state leader, and four other Klansmen to pay $37.8 million for their roles in a conspiracy to burn a black church. 

The Aryan Nation In September 2000, were brought down by the Southern Poverty Law Center when the Center won a $6.3 million judgment against Aryan Nations from an Idaho jury who awarded punitive and compensatory damages to plaintiffs who had been beaten with rifles by Aryan Nations security guards in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho in 1998.

The tobacco industry held power because of vast spending on political campaigns and effective lobbyists. They held power because they fought each lawsuit and refused to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, including, 1. Tobacco was not harmful to smokers; 2. Smokers' cancer was caused by other factors; 3) Smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke. The tobacco industry began to lose power when, in a landmark case the plaintiff and her family alleged that cigarette manufacturers knew, but did not warn consumers, that smoking caused lung cancer and that cigarettes were addictive. Other plaintiffs sued, claiming that tobacco companies knew cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer. 

I could go on, but I think I should be making my point. We don't have to resort to freedom of speech or action. We can argue that climate change is occurring and the changes occur, partially, because of human action. We have to show that pollution and climate harm people and business. We need to reveal how fossil fuels contribute to pollution. 

I again refer you to Merchants of Doubt

Mine is not a freedom of speech argument. My point is that with all the caterwauling about whether humans do vs humans do not cause climate change, burning fossil fuels pollute the air and water and fracking pollutes groundwater. 

If coal, oil, and gas pollute the air, soils, and water, then it is time for development of other means of energy.  The fossil fuels industries can argue freedom of speech all they want. 

I am willing to wager that China will develop alternative means of energy than the USA. 

OK, dear friends, show me where I am wrong in my assessment!

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:48pm

I should clarify that I'm not saying humans don't cause climate change. Merely that it is irrelevant if we do.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:47pm

Humanity has gone through three extinction events prior to the industrial era. 

Over the course of the entire history of the earth extinction events are so common their names get very similar.  99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, many due to climate change. 

It's stupid and anti human to believe that "our" climate change is any different. We should be studying how to adapt. Using our resources to stop change, irregardless of the source or type, is a lost fight. And a pointless expense of finite resources.

Change is the thing that has made human life possible on earth and is the guarantor of our continued dominance as a species.  

Humanity isn't dependent on environment to survive. It is dependent on thought. 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 21, 2016 at 7:35pm

That is just a double down on the same stuff I mentioned before. Again, those are papers, not scientists. And a misattribution of anthropogenically neutral papers as being pro-anthropogenic.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on June 21, 2016 at 7:22pm

Ruth, how do you propose that we stop a natural climate change cycle that has been going on for at least 420,000 years?

Comment by Grinning Cat on June 21, 2016 at 7:12pm

The "97% of climate scientists" figure is actually wrong.

The truth is virtual unanimity.

Out of 24,210 climate science and global warming articles published in 2013-2014, James Lawrence Powell in his new analysis found that only five rejected anthropogenic global warming. Out of those, only one was cited by another author, and that one, only once.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/14/do-97-of-sc...

http://jamespowell.org/methodology/newmethodology.html

 

Members (46)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service