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: 50
Latest Activity: Oct 13

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Framing Climate Destabilization

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Oct 4. 16 Replies

The words we use and the images they evoke shape public comprehension of Catastrophic Climate Destabilization's immanence. Here are a few terms from the past few days. It's a tiny…Continue

Tags: communicating climate science, Climate Destabilization, framing

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 22, 2016 at 1:51am

I agree that 99.999 % of the scientists may agree or disagree on a topic; vote does not determine the truth. The evidence is the deciding factor. 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 22, 2016 at 1:35am

I have read Merchants of Doubt.  May I give a book recommendation in return?

By way of general response, I posit that personal responsibility can't be abrogated. 

Those tobacco lobbies weren't any more responsible than the scientific consensus for the decision of smokers.  The premise of the book is that it is appropriate to think that it is right and even possible to transfer ownership of a decision. Demonstrably false premise.

Things get strange regarding climate talks. The debate is over - the anthropogenic camp won. It's over. Nearly all the money, influence, power, and rectitude are quite firmly held by 'the consensus.'  But in many ways talking about it is still like this.  Anyone against the consensus is easily destroyed by accusations of basis.

But one can't take the word of the consensus. Conclusions are inseparably a property of the individual. Else it would be quite rational to say, "I believe because my pastor said so."

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 22, 2016 at 1:25am

Well, well, well, we are at it again. Who is correct? I don't know. Maybe I am wrong about climate change; maybe not. Maybe Dr. Lindzen correctly analyzes the situation. 

I certainly am not willing to shoot anyone in defense of my position; neither am I able to ignore the various changes taking place. The question is not if a change is happening in climate, but climate is changing, and why? 

Glaciers melt, sea currents change, El Nino and El Nina bring about changes, temperatures rise every place I look, sink holes open where none opened in human history. Air becomes polluted; we make some changes and the skies clear. The same for lakes and rivers. Forests dry out and burn; new species come in behind them. Coastal waters erode the land. Iceland rises without the weight of glaciers; New Orleans has a rash of sinkholes. 

Are places sinking because of pumps pulling too much oil or gas or water out of the ground or is the ground sinking for other reasons worldwide? 

Just for the sake of argument, let's say I am wrong about the causes of climate change, so what? Climate changes. There are things I can do to reduce the impact on me. I am powerless to stop the changes. We, as a society, were able to improve air pollution. Can we, as a society, make shifts in the climate?  

Comment by Joan Denoo on June 22, 2016 at 12:38am

"The public will claim that nobody saw the drastic acceleration of climate change coming, nobody!"

It would be funny if it were not so tragic. 

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 Wachenheim 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.


Members (50)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service