Climate Change Watch

[ecuk268]

I've had a Covid jab so I'm just thinking whatever thoughts Bill Gates puts into my head.

[buctootim]

5 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

I've had a Covid jab so I'm just thinking whatever thoughts Bill Gates puts into my head.

Ha. His 24yr old daughter has had it too and was quoted as jokingly saying it "didn't put her dad's genius into her brain, unfortunately".  

[Jeremy]

If you cut down a lot of rain forest (in particular) and remove a signicant way of removing atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis (the ocean is the other way) and you increase the volume of non-naturally occurring CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere then there must be consequences to the natural world. Humanity is unquestionably doing both. There could be debate about the exact size and rate of change of the effect but there is no question we (humans) are playing dice with the climate. Unusual weather patterns are a symptom of that. Antartica isn't nearly the size it was 30 or so years ago. Coral bleaching is a fact. Recently recorded mean and average temperatures are a fact. With respect, increased volcanic activity can't explain this. We must halt climate change. 

Say, for argument, the evidence for climate change is equivocal. Blaise Pascal, a famous French philosopher and mathematician, posited what is known as "Pascal's wager" for helping decide if God (heaven or whatever else you want to call an accouintable afterlife) either exists or is relevant to the way we should live our lives. Do you want to risk going to euphemistically "hell" after you die by living a selfish, greedy, morally reprehensible life or do you want to play it safe and try and live a half decent life just in case we are judged at the pearly gates? By analogy, do we want to tempt fate and possibly leave behind a fucked planet for future generations by continuing to live the way we do and not at least considering the possibility that we could be irreparably harming the planet? I would guess that people with kids or grandkids may often, but not necessarily, see this issue differently to people who don't. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Jeremy said:

 Do you want to risk going to euphemistically "hell" after you die by living a selfish, greedy, morally reprehensible life or do you want to play it safe and try and live a half decent life just in case we are judged at the pearly gates? 

Define 'morally reprehensible'.

Is it the people / corporations responsible for deforestation or anyone who has bought a new table / chairs?

Is it someone who takes a foreign holiday on a plane every year or is there a number of plane journeys that triggers moving someone into that category, if so, how many trips / air miles?

Is it someone who drives the car to the local shops to get a paper and a lottery ticket instead of walking because it's pissing it down?

Where is the line drawn and who gets to decide the parameters?

[Jeremy]

In this particular context it is the legal equivalent of "wilful blindness" where somebody professes to innocently not knowing about something when if they had truly considered it properly he or she would or even should have known better. Once youi get into the grey area, and surely the climate change debate has reached this point, reasonable people acting reasoanbly must at least consider an alternative narrative to the status quo. James Lovelock, for example, described earth as a metaphor (Gaia) that deserved to be respected in contrast to the trashing that has been relentlessly pursued since the Industrial Revolution. I'm not a tree hugger into tantric yoga but I get frustrated when people aren't at least prepared to consider that climate change could be a real and present danger to our future. That does not mean reverting back to the stone age. We need to be realistic but surely public funds spent on researching and developing sustainable sources of energy or improving the efficiency of current essential technology for example is justified and urgent.

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

In this particular context it is the legal equivalent of "wilful blindness" 

Wow, that's quite a leap!

You've gone from 'morally reprehensible' to criminal charges!

Not really sure you understand what your argument is....