The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

I have the most responsibility to those who are closest in proximity in time and space to me. That isn't because people further away or existing in a different time are less valuable, but because I have the greatest ability to impact those existing closest to me.

If a climate scientist says that is the #1 existential threat to humanity, that may be due to their ignorance of the other threats due to the myopic nature of being expert in 1 field at the expense of an infinite other number of things in which to be expert in.

I'm sure experts in pathogens would say that pathogens are the #1 existential threat to humanity. That isn't en vogue to talk about these days, though.

Should we ask those who are expert in nuclear warfare strategy and cold war diplomacy what the biggest existential threat to humanity is?

I'm not suspect of the expertise of any of these people; only suspect of what level of "worry" to assign each of them.

[RedDevil]

I don't think an upcoming pathogenic disruption is a certainty.
What is certain is that we more than doubled the carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere, and it is affecting our world and lives. And not just the lives of those close to you; gases don't stop at borders.

If you put the trash out you pay the municipality to take it away, and you probably don't think lightly of people who litter.
Why should it be different for trash you can't see?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I tolerate Google because I derive things I want from them.

To the end that they data mine information I feed them, it isn't clear they are evil, and I expect them to come up with schemes to monetize that information.

You find value in the things Google chooses for you. What about those dogs that aren't barking?

Originally Posted by aerohead

When scientists kept their place, just did their work and submitted their reports,basically,nothing happened to move things off dead center.Here we are 60-years later,and people want to continue to argue,as we slip closer to the brink.

Are you sure? Would we have the Lightyear One if the scientists hadn't done their work?

The scientists grew a pair,and they're not backing down.
As to things,climate science,the climate scientists are all we have.They would have the best command of the data,as they're the ones in the trenches,on the front lines.
Perhaps the appropriate response is to recognize that we have a problem,and a narrow window of opportunity in which to act.

They haven't done so well with Dark Matter. But the scientist aren't the problem, it's the people who want to weld climate change to social change.

Corporations aren't people and money isn't speech. Everything else in consequent.

[NeilBlanchard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5zh3yG_-0

[NeilBlanchard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nbeD1mwCdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I have the most responsibility to those who are closest in proximity in time and space to me. That isn't because people further away or existing in a different time are less valuable, but because I have the greatest ability to impact those existing closest to me.

If a climate scientist says that is the #1 existential threat to humanity, that may be due to their ignorance of the other threats due to the myopic nature of being expert in 1 field at the expense of an infinite other number of things in which to be expert in.

I'm sure experts in pathogens would say that pathogens are the #1 existential threat to humanity. That isn't en vogue to talk about these days, though.

Should we ask those who are expert in nuclear warfare strategy and cold war diplomacy what the biggest existential threat to humanity is?

I'm not suspect of the expertise of any of these people; only suspect of what level of "worry" to assign each of them.

It's my opinion that,as a crew member of spaceship Earth,you have a responsibility to every other crew member onboard
.You and yours do not exist in a vacuum.
If there were only a hundred-million souls on the planet,you'd be free to do pretty much whatever you'd like,without collateral damage.That's no longer the case.Myopia will require corrective vision if we're to make it.
Earth is the basis for all life.All that life evolved for an environment which is changing faster than evolution could ever keep up with,from single-cell organisms up to apex predators.
Epidemiologists are going to die along with everyone else.Experts in nuclear warfare will be dead.
Again,if you had ever actually looked at the science of climate change,you'd realize that it trumps all other issues.
Debating climate change requires that you sleep with the enemy.You need to be able to argue both sides.

[freebeard]

• Debating climate change requires that you sleep with the enemy.
• You need to be able to argue both sides.

I'm looking at this and scratching my head.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You find value in the things Google chooses for you. What about those dogs that aren't barking?



Are you sure? Would we have the Lightyear One if the scientists hadn't done their work?

They haven't done so well with Dark Matter. But the scientist aren't the problem, it's the people who want to weld climate change to social change.

Corporations aren't people and money isn't speech. Everything else in consequent.

When I see 261-million Lightyears on the road in the USA,then you have a case.
Remember,climate is limited to 17-kilometers above sea-level.
As to dark matter,whether it exists or not would have no bearing on climate change.The universe is oblivious as to whether humans understand the cosmos or not.What's out there or not,is not affected by out knowledge of it or lack thereof.
Corporations have been 'persons' since 1886,as ruled by the Supreme Court,under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Money is speech,as with it,you can purchase access to 'We the People',through a myriad channels.You can purchase radio networks.Television networks.Newspaper networks.Publishing infrastructure.Found Institutes,Think tanks.Purchase local,county,state,and federal legislators.Appoint justices.Appoint committee members.Appoint election committee members.Establish internet websites.Produce motion pictures.Political attack ads.Opinion-Editorials.Lobbyists.Campaign finance.Dark money.PACs.
In a rule-of-law nation,where representative government sets policy,the only way one can affect policy,is to be within the political arena.
Anyone interested in protecting the environment would be impelled by necessity,to be active in the political arena.It's obviously no guarantee that anything would actually ever change,but it would one of the few mechanisms available to alter business as usual.
What I'm seeing in the denial community has nothing to do with the science of climate change,but rather the implications and ramifications to investors,should a majority of the population ever agree to act on the science.It's completely reactionary,fear-based behavior.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'm looking at this and scratching my head.

It's warfare.If you go West Point,Annapolis,the Air Force Academy,etc.,you'll be required to study Sun Tsu's,The Art of War.
You must figuratively,go into your enemies camp,and sleep with him. Know him.
And in debate class,you'll be expected to argue either side of any issue tossed at you,or it's a fail.
Climate denial is easy to argue.It's character assassination,demonization,fear-mongering,cowardly play on patriotism,using an Adam Smith and US history which never existed,lots of a-Christian behavior,yet claiming the moral and ethical high ground.Any seven-year-old could master it.

[freebeard]

Anyone interested in protecting the environment would be impelled by necessity,to be active in the political arena.It's obviously no guarantee that anything would actually ever change,but it would one of the few mechanisms available to alter business as usual.

Buckminster Fuller and Steve Jobs would have disagreed.*

It's warfare.If you go West Point,Annapolis,the Air Force Academy,etc.,you'll be required to study Sun Tsu's,The Art of War.
You must figuratively,go into your enemies camp,and sleep with him. Know him.
And in debate class,you'll be expected to argue either side of any issue tossed at you,or it's a fail.
Climate denial is easy to argue.It's character assassination,demonization,fear-mongering,cowardly play on patriotism,using an Adam Smith and US history which never existed,lots of a-Christian behavior,yet claiming the moral and ethical high ground.Any seven-year-old could master it.

Okay, I can see that. Would that warfare could be superceded by friendly persuasion.

Any seven-year-old can master Adam Smith and repurpose him?

The roads aren't full of Lightyears because advertising, not technology. I saw one of the inventors of the solar cell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Chapin) demonstrate a flashlight powered model car in the 1950s.

Agreed the climate doesn't care about our bickering.

*My Heroes Have Always Been Outlaws — Waylon Jennings

edit:

As to dark matter,whether it exists or not would have no bearing on climate change.

Originally Posted by myself

They haven't done so well with Dark Matter. But the scientist aren't the problem, it's the people who want to weld climate change to social change.

Didn't mean to imply it did. Just that science isn't static. Eventually, they'll accept that Dark Matter was just dust all along.