¤ milky moon ¤

All available evidence also suggests that we've had an influence on global climates beyond the effects of non-anthropogenic warming. Since a very long time ago indeed, in fact - the levels of methane in the ice core samples skyrocket after humans start domesticating large animals, and a consequence is the hastening of the end of the last ice age in Europe, permitting the spread of the Neolithic there.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the climate was static before we came along. That would obviously be wrong. The scientific community, which has as near to a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change as regarding anything you care to mention, isn't stupid; or even if you think climate scientists are stupid, you'd have to admit that they're unlikely to survive peer review if they don't bother to account for variables other than human behaviour, such as long term trends, in their work.

At least, humans are changing the climate as much as any other species. And one would have to admit that we punch far above our weight in terms of biomass - we may not be as heavy, combined, as the shrimp, but we sure as hell make up for it with our abilities to build a smokestack and idle in traffic.

Some climate change is anthropogenic. There is very strong evidence to suggest that greenhouse gas emissions (and other human behaviours) are involved in deleterious (for human existence as we know it) climate change. Consequently, regardless of the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that change, we should be seeking to reduce them: we should be seeking to ameliorate any cause of that change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

Hi r-enter-estered, I want to apologise for the tone of my last reply- being drunk and seeing your celebration of a post that referred to anthropogenic climate change as an 'unscientific juggernaut' was not the ideal combination. That doesn't seem like your perspective now though, and you seem genuinely interested in having a discussion about these issues.. I still don't fully understand your position though. I also don't see how Jordan contradicted himself, but I'll leave that for him to respond to.

The three perspectives you've devised don't seem to account for much- I really don't think a significant portion of people actually want climate change. Our beliefs are shaped by fear and ignorance as much as desire. Maybe it'd be better understood as 1) I believe in... 2) I don't believe in... 3) Reality/science, with 1 and 2 accounting only for a lack of awareness, or in the case of 2, possible awareness + denial.

Your observations about the climate either warming or cooling seem very 'black and white'/'all or nothing' in nature. Obviously you were putting it plainly, and communicating a preference for warming, rather than cooling. But even if some warming is inevitable, wouldn't you prefer relative stability to unbridled, destructive warming?

As for the effects of humans on climate, just to put things in perspective, here's a handy graph which shows the extent to which greenhouse gases have influenced global temperatures since 1900, relative to external natural processes:



Sorry for the large image, I have no idea how to resize it. Anyhow the data shows that greenhouse gas emissions have risen at an exponential rate since the Industrial Revolution, resulting in an unprecedented contribution to overall temperature increases. This is the specific anthropogenic climate change which I suggested would be ridiculous to deny.

About Mann's inaccurate projections: although we're not living at the warmest time presently, the scientific consensus predicts global temperatures to reach the highest since meteorological recording began by around 2050. Along with up to 35% of species going extinct by then, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by ~70%.

And in response to your claims about people who 'wish there to be an anthropogenic cause of (weather severity)'- current projections actually indicate that this is likely to occur in the future. Warmer temperatures allow for greater moisture and humidity in the atmosphere, which doesn't necessarily equate to more storms, but more intense storms, since storm severity is largely determined by humidity.

I hope this wasn't too apocalyptic; if you're concerned about climate change, go veg or vegan! It's probably the best thing we can do for the environment at the moment.

Edit: Graph created by Robert A Rohde from published data: Meehl, Gerald A.; Washington, Warren M.; Ammann, Caspar M.; Arblaster, Julie M.; Wigley, T. M. L.; Tebaldi, Claudia (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721–7 (see http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf), via wikipedia.org.

The only thing that I had left to write in response to your post, Byron, is to ask the source, that is, attribution for your graph and to clarify that I am not concerned about climate-change of any origin.

Alrighty, the post is edited to include the source. Nietzsche always makes for interesting reading, thanks for sharing!

Thank you for providing that link, Byron.

The . that I display doesn't contain the graph for which I requested ownership.

Will you please give attribution for that graph? Thanks.

How is study of philosophy going?

Study's kind of nonexistent at the moment- I graduated last year, and since then I've just been floating around and trying to figure out what to do next. The graph isn't published; it was created by a wiki user whose profile can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight. For plenty of information about the graph itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clim ... bution.png. If it seems less credible for being a product of wikipedia, or for being based on two studies rather than being included in one itself, there is lots of scientific, peer-reviewed data about climate change available online.

A lot... The compulsory capstone subject was entirely metaphilosophical- philosophy of philosophy- so I'm not sure which aspects of it would be particularly engaging or worthy of discussion. It was interesting to learn about philosophy's traditional rejection of the 'feminine', and how it's unfortunately still the most male-dominated area of the humanities today; and that many of its interests have been somewhat subsumed by modern science, while postmodern deconstructionism has seen a shift towards subjectivity and temporality in certain strands of thought; and the continued relevance of areas like political philosophy, philosophy of language and applied ethics for societies today.

Have you heard of Noam Chomsky? He's my favourite philosopher at the moment- an amazing contemporary academic who's done some really good work in political activism and raising awareness of media agendas and corporate influence. Peter Singer is great as well; I'm going to see him speak next month.

How about you, did you study? Has your interest in critical analysis led to any rewarding insights?

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

FYI, I meant to write , "simultaneously", instead of, "consecutively"--which I never wrote, as I mispelled it as 'consequitively'. That's funny.

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in above, marked '04 Jul 2015, 17:09'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.