The Global Warming Thread :p

[1a2bcio8]

I guess it's because of some of the tone that it's been delivered in in the past, to some extent? The people who are claiming to have done the research and know the facts of the situation - hence them being concerned enough to bring it to more peoples attentions - should have some idea of what can realistically be done to change things, so it doesn't really make sense to me that the rhetoric ends at posting links and quoting sources rather than presenting realistic ideas that they've worked out could actually be implemented? For example, Matt is one of the people who seems to go on about "big issues" quite often, yet "Don't vote" is as empty a proposed solution as just saying "Everyone should never use electricity again". Yes, that would theoretically stop a lot of problems we have, but it isn't something that's ever going to occur and never will do, so there's no point in clouding the issue and putting people off looking into things more themselves if they think that all they'll find is more empty posturing by people claiming to "know more"?

That's sort of why I don't see the point in just pinning hopes on everyone clubbing together for "mass movement" or a similar "big idea". It's unlikely to ever materialise, whereas incremental changes to peoples lifestyles and decisions will eventually have a cumulative effect. Admittedly it won't be much to stop the tide of change, but it's something that could actively spark an interest for people by showing them they themselves can make a difference, rather than just overpowering them with facts about how everything's f**ked unless the nation rises? I'm aware that's a hugely simplified version of what you're talking about, but hopefully it sheds some light onto the angle I'm coming from. To use a real world example, in Wales plastic carrier bags are no longer free and consequenty usage has dropped by 90%. That's clearly just a drop in the ocean and I'm not saying it really means much in a global scale, but it's undeniably a positive step. It's clearly a financially motivated step to some extent, but it's still a change that people have made. That's the sort of incremental step I'm referring to, as that actually achieves something, even if what it achieves is relatively minor.

The tone I've used is, I feel, proportional to problem we face. As I said before, we always speak in a way that relates to the issue at hand. I shout at you if you're about to crash your car or similar. I've used a tone that relates to how pressing I find things in relation to how apathetic people are about theirs and others fate. If someone is generally disinterested you might have to act with somewhat more urgency than normal. I think the tone is, ultimately, fairly immaterial though and skirts around the fundamental issue which is man-made climate change and its effects.

We don't have to have all of the answers. If I came to you and said that there's a problem with the foundation of your house you wouldn't tell me to not tell you because I don't know exactly how to solve the problem. How is this different? Even if I come to you with more evidence about differing ways that the foundation was problematic still without an exact solution would you tell me to stop telling you anything? Calling it posturing is totally unfair when it's following from a sincere interest in yours and others well being. There's no intent to mislead, confuse or simply look awesome. Which isn't to say we won't get in wrong in some regards. Undoubtedly I make mistakes as does everyone. What's important is whether people have really tried to understand, decided properly on its merits whether it's right or wrong, or whether they just avoid that process at all costs and simply rationalise it away by stabbing at the surface or factors that surround it as I've repeatedly seen in this and other threads.

As I've stated, the current problem, from my perspective and others, is people's lack of engagement and misunderstanding with what goes on beyond their immediate environment. Thus, offering arguments about the imperative of problems we face is an action to *hopefully* erode that. I believe people have a great potential capacity to care about the world and those beyond themselves or that are close to them. Even if they are only interested about themselves, these are issues that you need to know about. Global warming fits into a complex of political, economic, social, etc. issues that we all face. The world operates on that scale (globally) and thinking only in terms of your immediate environment no longer makes sense.

To deny the power of organisation is deny history. The last great period of organisation in the west - the 1960s - was effective in forwarding various rights for minority groups, ending wars, etc. so there is great potential for organisation and it's very possible. I don't really see the difference in a cumulative effort toward organising against an oppressive elite and a cumulative effort toward anything else? If one is possible why isn't the other? A cumulative effort toward organisation is becoming informed and then, on that basis, pursuing an objective in large enough numbers to be successful. You can already join movements but there's little point in doing so until you understand what you're joining; the ins and outs of what you're fighting for. Again, people already do it and there have been significant movements in the last century and all other centuries. Are we in some special era where our behaviours with respect to social movements are stuck? The reason for not just focusing on what we do individually in the sense of turning lights off, not using cars, your example, etc. is that it's not enough - it is valid but not complete. Industry is the worst offender. It is powerful, backed by the the government that's supposed to represent us, it manipulates our understanding and will only change if we, the people, make it. The fossil fuel industry has repeatedly engaged in actions that wreck the planet. It is psychopathic. We also don't have time to take things too slowly. Granted we can't do them instantly but we can't take too long. Humanity has to step up and break out of the current mould.

Basically, governments are well placed to develop and implement technology and policy that will affect man-made climate change. As it stands, those governments are uninterested in the warnings that have come from a mostly unified scientific community backed by a wealth of evidence. In fact, they are trying to further generate ignorance by removing the study of climate change from geography for children under 14 in schools. In so much as people are unaware of the context within which governments don't act (vested interests) and the power big business has over them they won't do anything about it. I'll keep emphasising this but understanding is the basis to ANY change. That lacks so it's the beginning of anything and everything. I mean, when I tell you that the government is removing that type of education doesn't it stir something within you? A sense of injustice or something similar? A concern? An interest if having things different? If it does then it serves a purpose. Repeatedly being inspired by injustices can have a cumulative effect to action. Just talking to others and inspiring them makes a difference.

I want to emphasis that you shouldn't mistake the firmness with which I say things as judgement grounded in disdain for people. I happen to think pretty much everyone I know in this community is awesome. JD as an example, whom I know is totally uninterested in all this, despite being very critical of his type of attitude, none the less, I think is awesome. None of this is trying to assert myself as awesome bearer of knowledge or hating people less moral than I or any nonsense like that. I'm definitely frustrated at people's attitudes but I do actually sympathise because I share them in varying degrees. I'm working hard to extract myself from my own apathy and selfishness and I'll probably spend the whole of my life attempting to without ever really fully succeeding. We live in a world where we are constantly manipulated into a world view of selfishness. We grow up in front of a television and the internet which is constantly trying to centre our attention around buying this or that item or experience. No wonder we find it difficult to give attention elsewhere. Despite that, I won't stop being critical and not saying things about the qualities and tendencies of our society and the individuals within. Overall we are very apathetic and selfish - that can be a critical description without containing judgement. Sometimes I judge - undoubtedly - but then so do all of you unless someone wants to try and tell me they don't? The point is whether the primary motive is grounded in compassion and I think for most people trying to forward these views it is. So even if it seems like I'm being very critical of your views, Mark, there's nothing personal. We're just in a domain I really care about and will argue strongly for irrespective of who you are

I'll say it one more time though. I am arguing to try and emphasis the dangers we are in. Environmentally, politically, economically, etc. Before we can address any of those things we have to recognise them as dangers, we have to understand what is dangerous about them, and that information has to generate concern and interest otherwise nothing else can come of it. In other words, at this stage when people aren't really interested or have much understanding - understand the intention here is critical not judgemental - that is what needs to change. It's the first port of call without which all others are meaningless. Therefore, reading is important to build up a more accurate picture of affairs.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Matt Vandart]

Mark, the people involved in government is insignificant compared to the people that are not.

Also I have stated that it wont just dissolve the system, it's a method of letting the people involved in this scam that the majority are onto them.

It all starts with one person, incremental change as you say.

So I stand by my statement, all you have to do (along with the majority if you are gonna split hairs) is not turn up to vote. Its the very reason people are encouraged, guilted and cajoled into voting.

With a no vote the game is up.

Another thing everyone could do is not turn up for work, for one day.

So what research have you done into global warming? I suppose you could only have quite a strong opinion on global warming if you have involved yourself in a fair amount of research. Climate change may not be due to human activity. It could be coincidence that greenhouse gas output happened at the time as some unknown or poorly understood phenomenon; though it would seem highly unlikely. I believe the stuff we're doing to help global warming at the moment is in vain. Our attempt to consider to environment is so insignificant as a planet and it will remain like that until, though it sounds very cornie, there are huge or widespread natural disasters.

There already have been huge and widespread natural disasters?

[1a2bcio8]

Mark, the people involved in government is insignificant compared to the people that are not.

Also I have stated that it wont just dissolve the system, it's a method of letting the people involved in this scam that the majority are onto them.

It all starts with one person, incremental change as you say.

That's actually a pretty fair point - I think it makes sense - but we could always just vote in a more representative party. I think that would show them even more

[1a2bcio8]

So what research have you done into global warming? I suppose you could only have quite a strong opinion on global warming if you have involved yourself in a fair amount of research. Climate change may not be due to human activity. It could be coincidence that greenhouse gas output happened at the time as some unknown or poorly understood phenomenon; though it would seem highly unlikely. I believe the stuff we're doing to help global warming at the moment is in vain. Our attempt to consider to environment is so insignificant as a planet and it will remain like that until, though it sounds very cornie, there are huge or widespread natural disasters.

I've read books and articles over the years. I take it, to some extent, on good faith that when a scientific community is almost entirely in accord with a descriptive model of reality that is probably good reason to believe it. I've backed that up with reading but obviously I'm not as versed as a scientist. That does make it more of a gamble from my position of understanding but that's the way it goes sometimes. Life is a constant stream of gambles and when they relate to such important issues it matters more than we take a stand rather than sitting on a fence and potentially allow something very bad to happen.

The fact of a definite increase of carbon within the atmosphere from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in pre-industrial times to 370 ppmv now - an increase of 30% - is too coincidental to be that. We know that the sun emits short-wave radiation which the earth absorbs and emits as long-wave radiation which various gases within the atmosphere absorb such as carbon, methane, etc. but carbon, at present, is the most problematic in terms of its heating properties against its increasing volume. What makes matters worse is various positive feedbacks such as trapped methane being freed from melting ice - a result of global warming - into the atmosphere. Methane has significantly greater heating properties than carbon and therefore will heat the atmosphere more which will melt even more ice and release even more methane; the process will run away from us if it gets that far as it cycles ever more rapidly. All evidence and explanation presently supports this theory. Originally there was some doubt but any attempt to refute this model has failed. All evidence leans towards anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. You probably trust science in all other walks of life so I find it difficult to understand why you might suddenly, in the arena, question it as you do?

It's always possible that we can't do anything but that's a big maybe. Isn't it worth trying when the potential outcome is probably a massive difference in ours and our children's quality of life? We could have been driving around electric cars by now but big oil made sure that possibility was shelved despite how successful trials of it were. Efforts to establish international policy on carbon emissions usually fail because countries like America pull out. They do this because government there - like the UK - represents business interests. We can further invest in and employ technologies that either don't emit or offset carbon emissions. These are all things that do make a difference and are not unrealistic in the slightest. They just aren't happening because elite profit is dominating policy.

When we say 'things will never change' then we create a self-fulfilling prophecy because then they will never change because you will never act on that idea. Yet if everyone said 'things can change, let's make it happen' then it would. We dwarf big business and government. In a sense it's that easy. It just becomes complex because of the attitudes that people hold toward the world that convince them not to do anything and then they say nothing can change...

This is why I'm trying to work on the level of awareness and understanding because it's the prime impediment to a world that isn't f**ked.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[Mark W]

If "The System" cared about "us", then surely they wouldn't act the way they do? Just knowing we're "Onto them" makes no difference as to them we ourselves make no difference. Also, I don't really get your point about the "majority" needing to not vote? The overall percentage of people who vote is irrelevant if there are still some people out there voting? That was my point - you're never going to get everyone to not vote, and if only one person votes that still counts as a result and would give people who wanted it the power to rule. Similarly, in the not too distant past MPs voted themselves a £31k increase in pay/perks - again, they must have known that people would've reacted negatively to that but they did it anyway. A futile attempt to show that your "onto them" by simply not bothering to vote changes nothing.

Ben - not ignoring your post, but wanted to reply to it properly and I'm not really in the frame of mind for that now...

[Duncy H]

I've only briefly skim read this topic so sorry if this is the wrong sort of idea or already been said.

My point is, what do you reckon the likelihood is that a replacement for fossil fuels or better energy source has been found and the oil companies pay to make them keep their mouths shut or threaten/harm/kill them so that they can get as much money from oil as they can til it is all gone.

Money controls the majority of problems in this modern world.

[Matt Vandart]

If "The System" cared about "us", then surely they wouldn't act the way they do? Just knowing we're "Onto them" makes no difference as to them we ourselves make no difference. Also, I don't really get your point about the "majority" needing to not vote? The overall percentage of people who vote is irrelevant if there are still some people out there voting? That was my point - you're never going to get everyone to not vote, and if only one person votes that still counts as a result and would give people who wanted it the power to rule. Similarly, in the not too distant past MPs voted themselves a £31k increase in pay/perks - again, they must have known that people would've reacted negatively to that but they did it anyway. A futile attempt to show that your "onto them" by simply not bothering to vote changes nothing.

Ben - not ignoring your post, but wanted to reply to it properly and I'm not really in the frame of mind for that now...

Your presumption is incorrect. The voting system relies on it being a representative gub-mint, it would not be representative of the population and therefore would be a farce and seen as such

I've only briefly skim read this topic so sorry if this is the wrong sort of idea or already been said.

My point is, what do you reckon the likelihood is that a replacement for fossil fuels or better energy source has been found and the oil companies pay to make them keep their mouths shut or threaten/harm/kill them so that they can get as much money from oil as they can til it is all gone.

Money controls the majority of problems in this modern world.

No they just buy up the patents, I know this from personal experience. (information for the 'conspiracy theory!' shouty people)

[Duncy H]

No they just buy up the patents, I know this from personal experience. (information for the 'conspiracy theory!' shouty people)

I was nearly there, I thought they'd have control of it in one way or another.

[hI-OOPS-CAPS]

There already have been huge and widespread natural disasters?

Maybe, but not yet disastrous enough to make us do anything significant.

[eskimo]

Sorry I didn't respond to you on Facebook. I've been feeling a bit unwell and didn't have the energy to engage again. I did actually pick up on your points but I chose not to respond to all of them in the previous post. I don't think I've heard anyone suggest that simply switching off everything is the key. That wouldn't work. Even if we do want to change there will have to be some period of doing so. The point is that technologies and policies do exist but they aren't being used. The current system seeks short-term gains over everything else. We also need to channel more money into developing technology even to completely kill our dependency on oil, etc. These don't have to amount to anarchy although undoubtedly some changes will be required. The point is that global warming is set to totally change the way the world operates anyway.

But the timescales given means we have to switch off right now. Yes the technology does exist, but there isn't any room for it in our modern society. You say there doesn't have to be anarchy for us to change. Explain to me in non philosophical terms how, please, cause i just don't get it. What job am i going to be doing? Where am i going to be living? How am i going to transport myself around? etc. This now applies to X amount of people in the world.

Why is my bringing you evidence of serious problems in the world not enough? I don't really understand the argument that it's not enough? Where do you draw the line of what I'm supposed to do for all of you? I actually find it difficult to understand that there isn't a significant curiosity and concern about serious matters that will probably effect you and others such that you aren't all going off to explore and find out what the situation is and figuring out what you can do to help.

But humans naturally don't do anything until it's too late. It's how we roll. There are millions of day to day examples of this, some that can even relate to such matters as global warming because they also involve killing or death.

[Matt Vandart]

What job am i going to be doing? Where am i going to be living? How am i going to transport myself around? etc. This now applies to X amount of people in the world.

It will apply equally if shit does hit the fan, so maybe you should start seriously considering all these things now, before you HAVE to along with millions of others