Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I always find people's integrity 'interesting' when this issue comes up. A while ago a friend of mine and her boyfriend had a debate of vegetarianism versus meat eating. He had decided to become a vegetarian and initially my friend thought this was a silly fad, so they discussed it. During the debate she realised that actually she too held views which were similar to his and was still only eating meat herself because she liked it so much, and was actually being hypocritical. She is now also a vegetarian; and I very much admire her integrity, regardless of the fact I don't share her views - I completely respect her. I don't personally believe in man made global warming. I do however respect other people's differing views but not when they continue to bomb around in their motor vehicles. I have to add that if someone lives in a remote part of town where public transport if virtually non existent then of course a car may be the only option. I have a relative that lives near to me, in London which as we all know is a really busy place and has a plethora of tubes, buses and overground stations plus we now have Boris bikes and proper cycle lanes. This relative is so quick to criticise if you don't reuse your carrier bags, yet will she ever give up her car, not in a million years! I just find it odd when ppl profess to have such strong beliefs, yet only act accordingly when it suits them :thumbdown: I guess I sometimes find it hard to take ppl seriously when they express their views yet their behaviour doesn't really say to me 'this REALLY IS what I believe in', and still think it's ok to criticise another person that doesn't believe in the same. For this reason this is a conversation that I tend not to have with people I know because no one really likes to hear that they are being a hypocrite, and they tend to get angry!!
It is not always easy to have these conversations, that's for sure, but, I believe, in the interest of discovering the truth, it is important to have such discussions. As long as all parties involved in the discussion have mutual respect for one another, then we should be able to disagree and to question each other's views with no harm done.
"When everyone thinks the same, no one thinks at all."
Global warming is real. As long as da good homeboys does something about it and ignore da naysayers it'll be sweet as au!!!
If you are so certain that global warming is real, why would you ignore those who disagree with you? Wouldn't it be better (for their sake) to explain to them why their arguments are incorrect?
In any case, I don't believe anyone here is debating whether or not global warming is real. The discussion is whether or not man is a contributing factor in global warming.
It is not always easy to have these conversations, that's for sure, but, I believe, in the interest of discovering the truth, it is important to have such discussions. As long as all parties involved in the discussion have mutual respect for one another, then we should be able to disagree and to question each other's views with no harm done.
"When everyone thinks the same, no one thinks at all."
- Walter Lippmann
Metta,
Guy
I agree with you, and it's also how useful bits of information can be exchanged to sometimes change our minds or at least cause us to consider something we hadn't realised. Topics such as this are so big now, that I expect very few people know the debate fully from both sides. I don't feel that us mere mortals are given enough information openly about the 'against' side which makes me suspicious, it all seems a little too convenient for Governments and the Governments wallets, yet there is plenty of info out there about why climate change is not how it is portrayed but you only get to learn about that if you actively seek out the information yourself.
Look, anyone at this point who clings to the belief that warnings and signs of global warming are the result of some sort of conspiracy is immune to reason. Confirmation bias can be a crippling roadblock because it's designed to filter out anything that the person doesn't want to hear. It's part of being human.
It works like this. If almost all of the world's Climatologists claim global warming is happening and we are at least partly responsible, and they present their evidence and it's compelling, yet a couple of "scientists" or even non-scientists with no standing tells us what we want to hear, our confirmation bias filters out the 99% of the evidence we don't want to hear.
Global warming is now a fact, evidenced by the measured warming of the globe. How much of it is caused by human activity can be endlessly debated, but we have also measured the man-made gasses in the global atmosphere that we know cause warming and chart the results. We know that we are at least partially to blame and will magnify any natural changes taking place. You can plug your ears and deny it all you want, but evidence says otherwise.
It's a moot point, anyway. Hoping we as a global species are going to change the way we live to any degree is just wishful thinking. We'll nibble around the edges a bit, but sheer population pressure cannot be solved by trading carbon credits between nations. Humanity doesn't roll that way. So even if people accept global warming, they won't give up their own lifestyle. Let some other community or nation do that, and besides, if we start walking everywhere, the other nations will continue to pollute and get all the benefits. So it's going to happen, in spite of everything.
Global warming is now a fact, evidenced by the measured warming of the globe. How much of it is caused by human activity can be endlessly debated, but we have also measured the man-made gasses in the global atmosphere that we know cause warming and chart the results. We know that we are at least partially to blame and will magnify any natural changes taking place. You can plug your ears and deny it all you want, but evidence says otherwise.
Which gases are these and how do we know they contribute to warming?
Clearly you don't want to believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that's been offered to date. That's fine for you. It's not fine for those of us who do believe it, and who are concerned about the consequences of not believing it. You may not believe that there is adequate scientific evidence that you'll fall to your death if you jump off a cliff, but I do, and I'm not going to do it.
Your lack of understanding, or your unwillingness to look at and accept such overwhelming objective scientific evidence (provision of which is FAR beyond the scope of this thread or this web site) is no reason for the rest of us to jump off the cliff with you and those who agree with you.
GuyC, You havent yet showed scientific studies that would indicate man-made greenhouse gases have no impact. Im talking about real research done by Universities or Institutions. I have yet to see you post something substantial.
and there is no need for the quotes where you come off as Neo, the only one awake. One could say you blindly follow people like Alex Jones who are fleecing the sheep. One could also say you are just going down a rabbit hole....and we all know where that leads.....a dead end.
Lord Monckton is a charlatan and a hack. He regularly lies and distorts evidence and anyone who relies on him for analysis is untrustworthy. There is an excellent video series on youtube by Peter Sinclair that really helps break down these myths perpetuated by big oil and their political affiliates. It goes directly into the science in a digestible manner. If you all are truly concerned with the truth, you will give it a shot:
Pretty much any issue brought up by a climate skeptic is addressed here in a way that makes sense and is easy to digest. Now that's not to say that there aren't folks out there moving towards globalization with some underhanded purposes, but that doesn't really change the overwhelming amount of science stretching back decades that support AGW.
@GuyC I have no problem with anybody coming up with their own theories, scientists or otherwise, as you can imagine there are thousands of theories about everything and anything, which is why observational evidence is crucial in eliminating the wrong ones and narrowing down the right ones. In the case of man made global warming I'm afraid as the link I gave you shows, there is an immense amount of observational and circumstantial evidence gathered (which continues to mount) that points towards man contributing to the rise in earths temperature, whereas the observational evidence that suggests there is no connection (and can only be explained by a process in which man is not involved) is severely lacking.
I would also point out that people who believe this conspiracy theory rubbish should read about how theories akin to conspiracy theories, built on the Atlantis myth contributed to the deluded master race belief that the Nazis held and resulted in so much suffering to a countless number of people.
It is for this reason why it I think it is important to debunk these conspiracy theories with sound science and logic in order to expose these theories as fallacies and fantasies.
Global warming is now a fact, evidenced by the measured warming of the globe. How much of it is caused by human activity can be endlessly debated, but we have also measured the man-made gasses in the global atmosphere that we know cause warming and chart the results. We know that we are at least partially to blame and will magnify any natural changes taking place. You can plug your ears and deny it all you want, but evidence says otherwise.
Which gases are these and how do we know they contribute to warming?
Metta,
Guy
CO2 from power plants and Methane from agriculture and waste processing are the two main gasses. But, all you have to do is look for an informative website that isn't a conservative funded rejection of mainstream science. One website I glanced at actually started "The now discredited theory of Global Warming..."
The only question is how much of the present warming is caused by humanity. Even with a "natural" warming trend, our contribution is going to be even more devastating.
Global warming is real. As long as da good homeboys does something about it and ignore da naysayers it'll be sweet as au!!!
If you are so certain that global warming is real, why would you ignore those who disagree with you? Wouldn't it be better (for their sake) to explain to them why their arguments are incorrect?
In any case, I don't believe anyone here is debating whether or not global warming is real. The discussion is whether or not man is a contributing factor in global warming.
Metta,
Guy
In many cases, debate tend to fuel the strength of the opposing team. It's important to put things into action than debating with people about it.
In many cases, debate tend to fuel the strength of the opposing team. It's important to put things into action than debating with people about it.
Surely it is important to find out what the truth is in order for our actions to be meaningful. If our actions are based on misinformation then surely we won't achieve the desired result.
In Buddhist practice, how can we have Right Action without Right View? The same principle applies with more "worldly" knowledge. Debate is one means by which we might come closer to the truth and to act accordingly.
You are correct that it is important to put things into action, but first we need to get our facts straight. I am not (yet) convinced that those proponents of the man-made global warming have a compelling enough argument, so, as far as I am concerned, debate is still useful.
If, as you say, "debate tends to fuel the strength of the opposing team", then maybe that is because the opposing team has a more compelling case?
I have no problem with anybody coming up with their own theories, scientists or otherwise, as you can imagine there are thousands of theories about everything and anything, which is why observational evidence is crucial in eliminating the wrong ones and narrowing down the right ones.
I agree.
In the case of man made global warming I'm afraid as the link I gave you shows, there is an immense amount of observational and circumstantial evidence gathered (which continues to mount) that points towards man contributing to the rise in earths temperature, whereas the observational evidence that suggests there is no connection (and can only be explained by a process in which man is not involved) is severely lacking.
I am not so convinced that this is true and, yes, I have been looking at the arguments and evidence on both sides. Still undecided.
I would also point out that people who believe this conspiracy theory rubbish should read about how theories akin to conspiracy theories, built on the Atlantis myth contributed to the deluded master race belief that the Nazis held and resulted in so much suffering to a countless number of people.
I have no intention of ever killing anyone, so your "master race" analogy does not apply, at least, not to me.
It is for this reason why it I think it is important to debunk these conspiracy theories with sound science and logic in order to expose these theories as fallacies and fantasies.
Your reasoning, as I mentioned above, is flawed. It is certainly true that some "conspiracy theories" hold no water when examined closely but to dismiss anything which could be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" merely because you are worried that it could be Nazi-like propaganda is more ridiculous than some of the worst conspiracy theories I have heard.
Just to set the record absolutely straight: I don't believe in reptilian shape-shifters or master races so, please, no strawmen!
My point is that the misinformation that most conspiracy theories pump out can lead misinformed people / people who do not wish to do the background research, to take them as being facts, which as I point out, 99% of the time they are not FACTS, they are made up to mislead and give a biased point of view.
I used the Nazi master race example as an extreme example where myths and misinformation about Atlantis eventually resulted in a group of people to believe it as a fact that led to millions dying who were not considered part of the master race.
Therefore, while you may not have any intention of 'killing anyone' as you put it, I think it is important to point out that misinformation such as that given in conspiracy theories, in the WRONG hands CAN result in people to have twisted views of the world, which lead them to unskilful actions.
And that is why it is essential that conspiracy theories are debunked so that FACTS can be established
And that is why it is essential that conspiracy theories are debunked so that FACTS can be established
Sure, you can try (and in many cases, succeed) in debunking conspiracy theories. But just because something can be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" does not mean it is necessarily false. Not all "conspiracy theories" are debunk-able.
Okay, so we are excavating the organic waste from millions upon millions of years and churning it into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels and you are wondering how much is due to people? We are just seeing the beginning of human-caused climate change/global warming, so none of us really know the extent of the damage.
6+ billion human citizens relying on carbon-based technology. Yeah, I'd say we're having a significant impact.
And that is why it is essential that conspiracy theories are debunked so that FACTS can be established
Sure, you can try (and in many cases, succeed) in debunking conspiracy theories. But just because something can be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" does not mean it is necessarily false. Not all "conspiracy theories" are debunk-able.
Metta,
Guy
If a conspiracy theory cannot be debunked then I would guess it would not stay a conspiracy theory, it would be recognized as a plausible, rational theory, by nonpartisan experts in the field of the theory.
I would guess that about 1% of all conspiracy theories out there fall into this category.
But theories such as the holocaust denial and a lot of others listed in the wiki link below, are quite frankly complete an utter fantasy.
If there really was some shadowy organization bent on controlling the world in secret do you really think there would be so much info out in public about them?
There is a lot of good information out there but there is also a lot of misinformation and disinformation. Not everyone who is "let in" on their secrets is aligned with their ideologies. For example:
Do you really think they couldn't easily get all these videos removed from YouTube?
They (the powers that be) could. I have noticed that a lot of the more accurate and informative videos do get removed from YouTube often in a very short space of time. If all videos of a conspiratorial nature were removed, that would be highly suspicious. Also, I am sure that they like the fact that many of the videos aimed at "exposing" them are, admittedly, poorly made - often these videos unfortunately have the highest view counts.
Do you really think the folks who expose their secrets wouldn't meet untimely ends from auto "accidents" or "natural causes"?
They do.
So these folks control all the world's governments and militaries, they control the banks and the flow of money, they control the media, yet they can't stop some dude in his basement from exposing them through YouTube videos? Am I seriously suppose to believe this?
They know that the majority of people (who form their opinions based on what the main stream media tells them) are not going to listen to "some dude in his basement". Unfortunately, it seems that you need an expensive studio with all the bright lights and one of those scrolling bars of text at the bottom of the screen for most people to listen to you, regardless of the quality or importance of the information being presented.
Metta,
Guy
Guy, if you want to sell me on this "New World Order" then prove it. Don't just say it, prove it. And spare the condescending remarks, they do not help your case.
Climate change deniers are contrarians who challenge the evidence that human activities such as deforestation and human behaviors that result in more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are causing changes in our planet's climate that may prove devastating and irreversible. Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. True skeptics raise specific doubts about specific claims and do not try to debunk a whole area of science by an occasional error or by the general lack of absolute certainty, which is unattainable in any area of science.http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html#web
Worth going to this page and it has lots of links. One thing many deniers succumb to is the conspiracy mindset, because once world opinion is against them, then the small group of deniers must admit to being wrong or somehow, a hidden conspiracy is working to hide the truth. This is a slippery slope and one that resists logical argument, since any evidence can be explained away as just the other side working behind the scene.
It's puzzling to me, this belief in a shadowy conspiracy of scientists/politicians/socialists/whatever, because the evidence through history is that humanity simply finds it impossible to cooperate for more than a few years at a time across cultures, and even then the ones in charge spend more time fighting among themselves than working toward the same goal. You might as well get a bunch of cats together and tell them to all share that one mouse you toss into the room. The thought that any world-wide collection of humans can sustain a conspiracy of this magnitude is ludicrous.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I didn't really read much of this post, but to me the simple fact that seems to always be ignored is the basic science on the greenhouse effect.
Our atmosphere traps heat from the sun. The level of 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere determines how much heat gets trapped. Human beings have been adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Anything else just seems to be arguing about the extent to which human added greenhouse gasses add to warming or what the effects of warming will be.
The media generally feels its necessary to provide both sides of an argument in order to be balanced. In this case though the deniers don't have the same level of peer reviewed material on their side.
I didn't really read much of this post, but to me the simple fact that seems to always be ignored is the basic science on the greenhouse effect.
Our atmosphere traps heat from the sun. The level of 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere determines how much heat gets trapped. Human beings have been adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Anything else just seems to be arguing about the extent to which human added greenhouse gasses add to warming or what the effects of warming will be.
The media generally feels its necessary to provide both sides of an argument in order to be balanced. In this case though the deniers don't have the same level of peer reviewed material on their side.
There is little to no peer reviewed material on the side of the deniers. And what studies they do have are usually funded by organizations linked to big oil. I have a friend who was a denier (probably still is) who would always tell me to 'follow the money' as an argument against human caused climate change. That always confused me as there is a LOT more money behind efforts to question the scientific consensus. Unless you think university grants for professors and grad students is somehow a factor of bias.
I find it disheartening that self-described Buddhists are so cynical that they honestly believe that the vast majority of the climate scientists in the world are out for nothing more than self-promotion and getting more research money. That's the crux of their argument. What a bitter viewpoint.
GuyC, You havent yet showed scientific studies that would indicate man-made greenhouse gases have no impact. Im talking about real research done by Universities or Institutions. I have yet to see you post something substantial.
Clearly you don't want to believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that's been offered to date. That's fine for you. It's not fine for those of us who do believe it, and who are concerned about the consequences of not believing it.
I want to come to my own conclusion after looking at the evidence and arguments presented on both sides first and weighing them up against each other. Isn't this reasonable? So far I am not yet convinced either way.
You may not believe that there is adequate scientific evidence that you'll fall to your death if you jump off a cliff, but I do, and I'm not going to do it.
I am not questioning the danger of jumping off a cliff. Anyone can see that jumping off a cliff is harmful. Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut.
Clearly you don't want to believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that's been offered to date. That's fine for you. It's not fine for those of us who do believe it, and who are concerned about the consequences of not believing it.
I want to come to my own conclusion after looking at the evidence and arguments presented on both sides first and weighing them up against each other. Isn't this reasonable? So far I am not yet convinced either way.
You may not believe that there is adequate scientific evidence that you'll fall to your death if you jump off a cliff, but I do, and I'm not going to do it.
I am not questioning the danger of jumping off a cliff. Anyone can see that jumping off a cliff is harmful. Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut.
Metta,
Guy
Maybe you would like to tell the population of the Maldives that climate change is not harmful. I am pretty sure they would disagree.
I am not questioning the danger of jumping off a cliff. Anyone can see that jumping off a cliff is harmful. Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut.
Maybe you would like to tell the population of the Maldives that climate change is not harmful. I am pretty sure they would disagree.
Perhaps what I should have said was:
"[The exact extent to which man may or may not be involved in effecting] Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut."
As I have already made clear previously on this thread, I do not question that climate change is occuring, instead, I am questioning:
1) Does man play a part?
2) If so, to what extent?
I hope this clarifies the intended meaning of the quoted paragraph.
I find it disheartening that self-described Buddhists are so cynical that they honestly believe that the vast majority of the climate scientists in the world are out for nothing more than self-promotion and getting more research money. That's the crux of their argument. What a bitter viewpoint.
If you are referring to my position when you speak of bitterness and cynicism, you are incorrect, but I can see why you draw that conclusion - my original post was intended to be provocative. In hindsight, perhaps I could/should have started this thread in a less provocative manner as doing so would have saved me a lot of time clarifying that my position is one of agnosticism rather than cynicism.
"A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true."
I am not questioning the danger of jumping off a cliff. Anyone can see that jumping off a cliff is harmful. Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut.
Maybe you would like to tell the population of the Maldives that climate change is not harmful. I am pretty sure they would disagree.
Perhaps what I should have said was:
"[The exact extent to which man may or may not be involved in effecting] Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut."
As I have already made clear previously on this thread, I do not question that climate change is occuring, instead, I am questioning:
1) Does man play a part?
2) If so, to what extent?
I hope this clarifies the intended meaning of the quoted paragraph.
Metta,
Guy
Maybe you should also be questioning what humans can do to slow down and even reverse climate change. If you ask these questions then I am sure you will come to the same conclusions that the people who believe that man has had an effect on the climate, comes to. So it does not really matter if you believe it or not, humans still need to try and do something about it.
Humans have been pumping ever-increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every single day for the best part of the last 150 years. That's a fact. It's also a fact that that phenomenon is new and unique to the past 150 years. There is no denying that. Before that, the amount of human-produced CO2 was essentially nil. I just don't understand why it's so hard for some people to accept that there's even a possibility that all those trillions (maybe more than that) of tons of CO2 that the earth has never seen before at one time can and is causing the greenhouse effect (which, btw, is also fact - it exists and CO2 causes it).
Like I said, I'm just not willing to risk the chance that we're *not* causing a drastic increase in the natural warming cycle. I truly and fervently hope I, along with all those climate and other scientists, am dead wrong. I really, really do. But I don't think I am.
Instead of arguing about it, we should be looking actively at ways to reduce the human output of CO2, which I think we can all agree is not a natural thing in the grand scheme of the history of the earth.
@shanyin - where's the evidence? Where do you want to start? Do you want us to cut and paste all of it here? I don't think newbuddhist.com's servers have that much bandwidth available. If you don't believe there is evidence, then you just need to read more.
Maybe you should also be questioning what humans can do to slow down and even reverse climate change. If you ask these questions then I am sure you will come to the same conclusions that the people who believe that man has had an effect on the climate, comes to. So it does not really matter if you believe it or not, humans still need to try and do something about it.
Here are the facts: the Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately 97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Those are simply the facts. It’s not hard to connect them, as long as you stick to reality and don’t let ideology sway you.
------------------------------- That didn't take long. Not that I didn't before.
Here are the facts: the Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Shanyin
So you would have us take a two hundred year slice of history when earth has warmed and declare that because it coincides with the industrial revolution it MUST be man made. Four billion years of warming and cooling but this two hundred year slice is what you will hang your argument on. Maybe after we stop using fossil fuels we should cap all the volcanoes....
By the way, I heard that CO2 gases are being vented out into space and this will perhaps mitigate whatever effect this has really had. The earth farts, now who would have thunk it: this ever heating planet speeding through a unimaginably cold universe might regulate itself from the OUTSIDE.
Sorry for no link but I am not able to produce such technical wizardry.
Comments
I always find people's integrity 'interesting' when this issue comes up. A while ago a friend of mine and her boyfriend had a debate of vegetarianism versus meat eating. He had decided to become a vegetarian and initially my friend thought this was a silly fad, so they discussed it. During the debate she realised that actually she too held views which were similar to his and was still only eating meat herself because she liked it so much, and was actually being hypocritical. She is now also a vegetarian; and I very much admire her integrity, regardless of the fact I don't share her views - I completely respect her. I don't personally believe in man made global warming. I do however respect other people's differing views but not when they continue to bomb around in their motor vehicles. I have to add that if someone lives in a remote part of town where public transport if virtually non existent then of course a car may be the only option. I have a relative that lives near to me, in London which as we all know is a really busy place and has a plethora of tubes, buses and overground stations plus we now have Boris bikes and proper cycle lanes. This relative is so quick to criticise if you don't reuse your carrier bags, yet will she ever give up her car, not in a million years! I just find it odd when ppl profess to have such strong beliefs, yet only act accordingly when it suits them :thumbdown: I guess I sometimes find it hard to take ppl seriously when they express their views yet their behaviour doesn't really say to me 'this REALLY IS what I believe in', and still think it's ok to criticise another person that doesn't believe in the same. For this reason this is a conversation that I tend not to have with people I know because no one really likes to hear that they are being a hypocrite, and they tend to get angry!!
Dandelion
Thank you for sharing your views.
It is not always easy to have these conversations, that's for sure, but, I believe, in the interest of discovering the truth, it is important to have such discussions. As long as all parties involved in the discussion have mutual respect for one another, then we should be able to disagree and to question each other's views with no harm done.
"When everyone thinks the same, no one thinks at all."
- Walter Lippmann
Metta,
Guy
In any case, I don't believe anyone here is debating whether or not global warming is real. The discussion is whether or not man is a contributing factor in global warming.
Metta,
Guy
Dandelion
It works like this. If almost all of the world's Climatologists claim global warming is happening and we are at least partly responsible, and they present their evidence and it's compelling, yet a couple of "scientists" or even non-scientists with no standing tells us what we want to hear, our confirmation bias filters out the 99% of the evidence we don't want to hear.
Global warming is now a fact, evidenced by the measured warming of the globe. How much of it is caused by human activity can be endlessly debated, but we have also measured the man-made gasses in the global atmosphere that we know cause warming and chart the results. We know that we are at least partially to blame and will magnify any natural changes taking place. You can plug your ears and deny it all you want, but evidence says otherwise.
It's a moot point, anyway. Hoping we as a global species are going to change the way we live to any degree is just wishful thinking. We'll nibble around the edges a bit, but sheer population pressure cannot be solved by trading carbon credits between nations. Humanity doesn't roll that way. So even if people accept global warming, they won't give up their own lifestyle. Let some other community or nation do that, and besides, if we start walking everywhere, the other nations will continue to pollute and get all the benefits. So it's going to happen, in spite of everything.
Metta,
Guy
Clearly you don't want to believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that's been offered to date. That's fine for you. It's not fine for those of us who do believe it, and who are concerned about the consequences of not believing it. You may not believe that there is adequate scientific evidence that you'll fall to your death if you jump off a cliff, but I do, and I'm not going to do it.
Your lack of understanding, or your unwillingness to look at and accept such overwhelming objective scientific evidence (provision of which is FAR beyond the scope of this thread or this web site) is no reason for the rest of us to jump off the cliff with you and those who agree with you.
Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
and there is no need for the quotes where you come off as Neo, the only one awake. One could say you blindly follow people like Alex Jones who are fleecing the sheep. One could also say you are just going down a rabbit hole....and we all know where that leads.....a dead end.
Monckton:
The Video Channel (with lots of other well presented videos):
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u
Pretty much any issue brought up by a climate skeptic is addressed here in a way that makes sense and is easy to digest. Now that's not to say that there aren't folks out there moving towards globalization with some underhanded purposes, but that doesn't really change the overwhelming amount of science stretching back decades that support AGW.
Good vids, were actually pretty entertaining. This Monckton is quite the character
I would also point out that people who believe this conspiracy theory rubbish should read about how theories akin to conspiracy theories, built on the Atlantis myth contributed to the deluded master race belief that the Nazis held and resulted in so much suffering to a countless number of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race
It is for this reason why it I think it is important to debunk these conspiracy theories with sound science and logic in order to expose these theories as fallacies and fantasies.
The only question is how much of the present warming is caused by humanity. Even with a "natural" warming trend, our contribution is going to be even more devastating.
Who is with me?
Let's GOOOOOOOO! (John Belushi runs out of the "Animal House" alone)
To those of you who I have not yet responded to, please bear with me, I do intend to get back to you.
For those who are concerned about the environment (presumably everyone here, regardless of our opinions on global warming), maybe you would be interested in signing this petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_amazon_a/?cl=1226482470&v=9953
Metta,
Guy
In Buddhist practice, how can we have Right Action without Right View? The same principle applies with more "worldly" knowledge. Debate is one means by which we might come closer to the truth and to act accordingly.
You are correct that it is important to put things into action, but first we need to get our facts straight. I am not (yet) convinced that those proponents of the man-made global warming have a compelling enough argument, so, as far as I am concerned, debate is still useful.
If, as you say, "debate tends to fuel the strength of the opposing team", then maybe that is because the opposing team has a more compelling case?
Metta,
Guy
This is what I am trying to find out more about. Still undecided.
Metta,
Guy
I have no intention of ever killing anyone, so your "master race" analogy does not apply, at least, not to me.
Your reasoning, as I mentioned above, is flawed. It is certainly true that some "conspiracy theories" hold no water when examined closely but to dismiss anything which could be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" merely because you are worried that it could be Nazi-like propaganda is more ridiculous than some of the worst conspiracy theories I have heard.
Just to set the record absolutely straight: I don't believe in reptilian shape-shifters or master races so, please, no strawmen!
Metta,
Guy
My point is that the misinformation that most conspiracy theories pump out can lead misinformed people / people who do not wish to do the background research, to take them as being facts, which as I point out, 99% of the time they are not FACTS, they are made up to mislead and give a biased point of view.
I used the Nazi master race example as an extreme example where myths and misinformation about Atlantis eventually resulted in a group of people to believe it as a fact that led to millions dying who were not considered part of the master race.
Therefore, while you may not have any intention of 'killing anyone' as you put it, I think it is important to point out that misinformation such as that given in conspiracy theories, in the WRONG hands CAN result in people to have twisted views of the world, which lead them to unskilful actions.
And that is why it is essential that conspiracy theories are debunked so that FACTS can be established
Metta,
Guy
6+ billion human citizens relying on carbon-based technology. Yeah, I'd say we're having a significant impact.
I would guess that about 1% of all conspiracy theories out there fall into this category.
But theories such as the holocaust denial and a lot of others listed in the wiki link below, are quite frankly complete an utter fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
Worth going to this page and it has lots of links. One thing many deniers succumb to is the conspiracy mindset, because once world opinion is against them, then the small group of deniers must admit to being wrong or somehow, a hidden conspiracy is working to hide the truth. This is a slippery slope and one that resists logical argument, since any evidence can be explained away as just the other side working behind the scene.
It's puzzling to me, this belief in a shadowy conspiracy of scientists/politicians/socialists/whatever, because the evidence through history is that humanity simply finds it impossible to cooperate for more than a few years at a time across cultures, and even then the ones in charge spend more time fighting among themselves than working toward the same goal. You might as well get a bunch of cats together and tell them to all share that one mouse you toss into the room. The thought that any world-wide collection of humans can sustain a conspiracy of this magnitude is ludicrous.
Our atmosphere traps heat from the sun. The level of 'greenhouse' gas in the atmosphere determines how much heat gets trapped. Human beings have been adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Anything else just seems to be arguing about the extent to which human added greenhouse gasses add to warming or what the effects of warming will be.
The media generally feels its necessary to provide both sides of an argument in order to be balanced. In this case though the deniers don't have the same level of peer reviewed material on their side.
What would convince you that global warming is real and caused by humans?
Are there any facts in particular you are not sure about?
Interesting videos, thanks for sharing.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Maybe you would like to tell the population of the Maldives that climate change is not harmful. I am pretty sure they would disagree.
what's the evidence for climate change?
97% of climatologists think it's happeneing and we played a significant part in it. That's out of 3000. (time magazine)
Anyways...
where's the evidence?
"[The exact extent to which man may or may not be involved in effecting] Climate change, on the other hand, does not appear (to me) to be so clear cut."
As I have already made clear previously on this thread, I do not question that climate change is occuring, instead, I am questioning:
1) Does man play a part?
2) If so, to what extent?
I hope this clarifies the intended meaning of the quoted paragraph.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/
"A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true."
So it does not really matter if you believe it or not, humans still need to try and do something about it.
Like I said, I'm just not willing to risk the chance that we're *not* causing a drastic increase in the natural warming cycle. I truly and fervently hope I, along with all those climate and other scientists, am dead wrong. I really, really do. But I don't think I am.
Instead of arguing about it, we should be looking actively at ways to reduce the human output of CO2, which I think we can all agree is not a natural thing in the grand scheme of the history of the earth.
@shanyin - where's the evidence? Where do you want to start? Do you want us to cut and paste all of it here? I don't think newbuddhist.com's servers have that much bandwidth available. If you don't believe there is evidence, then you just need to read more.
1) We can do something (about climate change)
2) We should do something
What evidence is there for these assumptions?
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Those are simply the facts. It’s not hard to connect them, as long as you stick to reality and don’t let ideology sway you.
-------------------------------
That didn't take long. Not that I didn't before.
Enough about me!!!
Mods please, this one is dead.
Here are the facts: the Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Shanyin
So you would have us take a two hundred year slice of history when earth has warmed and declare that because it coincides with the industrial revolution it MUST be man made.
Four billion years of warming and cooling but this two hundred year slice is what you will hang your argument on.
Maybe after we stop using fossil fuels we should cap all the volcanoes....
By the way, I heard that CO2 gases are being vented out into space and this will perhaps mitigate whatever effect this has really had. The earth farts, now who would have thunk it: this ever heating planet speeding through a unimaginably cold universe might regulate itself from the OUTSIDE.
Sorry for no link but I am not able to produce such technical wizardry.