Yes, I posted it here because it was recently discussed here, it was interesting and educational.

The oceans are crucial to the AGW debate. The oceans act like a giant flywheel to the climate/weather system and there is much that we don't know about them. And central to this, is that mixing may well be greater than 'thought' and as such 'the missing heat' of AGW is being spread far and wide - but of course, this can't be found.

The more we know about the system the better are our chances to determine outcomes.

I'm all for better control of the excesses of the consumer society providers, but, the chosen battle ground is not one that I can agree with.

Thanks.

That last statement strikes a chord.  Something has been bothering me about the sort of nonsense trotted out by Stephen and a few others about the constant battle against nature and how the progress we have made has to be better and right.  Then I think about unnecessary low-cost flights, multiple TV sets, unrestrained consumerism and all the other nonsense of our modern age... Which aspects of our progress are necessary and which frivolous and how much better would our effect on the environment be if we pursued a different path?

Careful G.T.W.! You'll end labelled as someone who wants us back in the stone age....LOL

Sadly consumerism relies upon our personal addiction to it and we cannot un-invent the wheel. The savings we would make , as a planet, if we all lived more like our Grannies/Great Grannies but that would mean giving up 'stuff' and who would pursue policies that impoverished what folk now 'expect' in the developed world.

I mean , what ever happened to "mend and make do"? "Bin it and buy new" is todays mantra.....Ho Hum

Careful G.T.W.! You'll end labelled as someone who wants us back in the stone age....LOL

Sadly consumerism relies upon our personal addiction to it and we cannot un-invent the wheel. The savings we would make , as a planet, if we all lived more like our Grannies/Great Grannies but that would mean giving up 'stuff' and who would pursue policies that impoverished what folk now 'expect' in the developed world.

I mean , what ever happened to "mend and make do"? "Bin it and buy new" is todays mantra.....Ho Hum

Good morning Gray-Wolf

An interesting point.... As you may know or suspect, my concern is that as a species we will be headed backwards unless we take action to change the way we are heading.   Collectively we are taking the planet for granted and at some point, on the current trends, we will exceed one threshold or another (food, water, climate change, eco-system collapse etc) and be forced to change instead of being able to control our own destiny.

I am with you in being able to recall the 'mend and make do' era - just.  Unfortunately now too much is made not to last, to perpetuate the consumerism machine.  On top of that globalisation means the cost of making new (in e.g. China) is less than the cost of repair (in e.g. the West).

Hi again G.T.W.!

If I recall rightly part of that which caused the 'Wall street crash' were white goods made to last? Without the second world war there'd have been no "mend and make do" (I believe) and it was merely a prop during the war and austerity years to make us all feel 'involved'.

As with others recently the 'black dog' has me today and I can not see any voluntary move towards reducing our consumerism (token 'greening' of it yes but abandonment? no).

I'd refer you back to the "Giddens Paradox" to highlight my fears;

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/01-8

sadly I'm with prof G. on this and without a quantifiable crisis in the faces of Joe Public (highlighting the destruction ahead of us if we maintain our current course) we (Joe P.) will not engage with any measures that impoverish us.

If we look at the money our greedy bankers cost us ,in terms of what we could have used all that money in terms of our futures sake, you might see more clearly what Global priorities appear to be?

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

Agreed but its not our planet and therefore should not be our decision when we reach the expiry date. 

Expiry date seems to be another end-of-days notion.
It won't expire, just evolve.
It is our planet, by the way.
Well no one else has a better claim anyhow.

Expiry date seems to be another end-of-days notion.
It won't expire, just evolve.
It is our planet, by the way.
Well no one else has a better claim anyhow.

Err, no it isn't.  On what basis do you claim ownership?

As the apparently superior race do we not have any stewardship responsibility for the other species here?  If not, how about enlightened self-interest, because if we continue to damage the eco-system we will threaten our own existence.  I assume this has occurred to you?   You can have all the technological progress you want but if we cannot live with nature what is our future?

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

Agreed but its not our planet and therefore should not be our decision when we reach the expiry date. 

Whose is it then? Nothing else has a consciousness capable of claiming ownership let alone being capable of understanding that there is a planet. You may think that the Earth belongs to all life, but as a human you are the only living thing able to make such a claim (should you so wish!) The Earth is ours, however briefly, because we are the only species that are able to give it meaning.

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

Agreed but its not our planet and therefore should not be our decision when we reach the expiry date. 

Whose is it then? Nothing else has a consciousness capable of claiming ownership let alone being capable of understanding that there is a planet. You may think that the Earth belongs to all life, but as a human you are the only living thing able to make such a claim (should you so wish!) The Earth is ours, however briefly, because we are the only species that are able to give it meaning.

 

Hello NS, I think we've been here before haven't we?

There are so many points to challenge in your short post...

1. Whose is it then? Simple, it belongs to all living things on the planet.


2. How do you know that nothing else has a consciousness? 


3. It is not about being able to perceive that there is a planet or being capable of making such a claim.  it was only a few tens of generations ago that man began to realise that there was a planet, so this is not a permanent state of affairs


4. I don't understand the last sentence at all.  You imply that becauses something can be given 'meaning' then it can be 'claimed' - sorry, I really don't know where to start to demolish this.

On the simplest level, as the supposedly most advanced species do we not have a duty to act responsibly towards the planet?  We only have the one and if we mess it up all species suffer.  Does not our 'higher intelligence' confer respoonsibilities?

On another level, if we are so wise do we not appreciate our dependency on a healthy and sustainable eco-system?  If we destroy too much we risk damaging that upon which we depend for our existence.   We are behaving like 'cut and burn' peasants, intent on short-term survival without regard for the longer term.   Fortunately for our ancestors there was another patch of ground somewhere to start again - we have but one Planet Earth.

What the human race was able to do when it numbered a few hundred million is altogether different to what it can afford to do when we are pushing through 7 billion and those 7 billion are consuming more per capita than ever before.

I think I have posed this to you before.   There must be a point when this cannot be sustained, so what is that point and when do we reach it? 

We cannot continue as we are - yet we seem incapable of change until it becomes unavoidable.  The latter carries consequences because there will be a lot of collateral damage if we wait until we have to change our ways.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/desperation-robotic-twitter-bot-spoofs-climate-change-deniers/#more-27444

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/desperation-robotic-twitter-bot-spoofs-climate-change-deniers/#more-27444

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

Agreed but its not our planet and therefore should not be our decision when we reach the expiry date. 

Whose is it then? Nothing else has a consciousness capable of claiming ownership let alone being capable of understanding that there is a planet. You may think that the Earth belongs to all life, but as a human you are the only living thing able to make such a claim (should you so wish!) The Earth is ours, however briefly, because we are the only species that are able to give it meaning.

 

And more to the point, God specifically told us it's ours and that we're in charge of everything.   So that's all right then.  Besides, He'd hardly allow us to wipe out millions of species and change entire ecosystems unless that was what He wanted, would He? 

Of course, in the more enlightened inner northern spiral arms of the galaxy, where gods are treated with the full contempt they deserve and are only rarely allowed out from their toilet cleaning duties, species accept responsibility.  And it is considered the responsibility of the most populous sentient species to protect their planet such that all fellow species might have the opportunity to share it. As a result everyone lives together in harmony and are only occasionally eaten alive by ravenous bugblatter beasts.

Responsibility is of course a totally alien concept to humans.  Although curiously they do seem to have grasped the idea of it always being someone else's fault ......  and making lots of money as a consequence.

This is slightly steering off topic. I'm afraid that wanting more and taking more is human nature and there is nothing we can do about that. Nobody can stop progress and like all things, a date of expiry applies to the planet too. Live and be happy

Agreed but its not our planet and therefore should not be our decision when we reach the expiry date. 

Whose is it then? Nothing else has a consciousness capable of claiming ownership let alone being capable of understanding that there is a planet. You may think that the Earth belongs to all life, but as a human you are the only living thing able to make such a claim (should you so wish!) The Earth is ours, however briefly, because we are the only species that are able to give it meaning.

 

Hello NS, I think we've been here before haven't we?

There are so many points to challenge in your short post...

1. Whose is it then? Simple, it belongs to all living things on the planet.


2. How do you know that nothing else has a consciousness? 


3. It is not about being able to perceive that there is a planet or being capable of making such a claim.  it was only a few tens of generations ago that man began to realise that there was a planet, so this is not a permanent state of affairs


4. I don't understand the last sentence at all.  You imply that becauses something can be given 'meaning' then it can be 'claimed' - sorry, I really don't know where to start to demolish this.

On the simplest level, as the supposedly most advanced species do we not have a duty to act responsibly towards the planet?  We only have the one and if we mess it up all species suffer.  Does not our 'higher intelligence' confer respoonsibilities?

On another level, if we are so wise do we not appreciate our dependency on a healthy and sustainable eco-system?  If we destroy too much we risk damaging that upon which we depend for our existence.   We are behaving like 'cut and burn' peasants, intent on short-term survival without regard for the longer term.   Fortunately for our ancestors there was another patch of ground somewhere to start again - we have but one Planet Earth.

What the human race was able to do when it numbered a few hundred million is altogether different to what it can afford to do when we are pushing through 7 billion and those 7 billion are consuming more per capita than ever before.

I think I have posed this to you before.   There must be a point when this cannot be sustained, so what is that point and when do we reach it? 

We cannot continue as we are - yet we seem incapable of change until it becomes unavoidable.  The latter carries consequences because there will be a lot of collateral damage if we wait until we have to change our ways.

I'll address the numbered points first:

1. Who says it belongs to all things on the planet? You? Give me a concrete reason why I should regard this point in any other way than opinion. Some would argue that the world is god's but I'm not religious I'm a humanist.

2. I don't know that for certain but no other creature is capable of organising a society in the way we do. No other living thing has dominance over others like humans.

3. I'm talking about now and the position that history has led us to.

4. Plants and animals do not understand the world in the way humans do, they are unaware of the very concept of a planet. If the planet has no meaning for them how can it belong to them? The very sense of belonging is a human concept, it is not shared by any other creature on earth. If it is only humans who can understand the world how can it not belong to us? You may believe that the world belongs to all life but it is only through collective culture and consciousness that you can proclaim so.

I answered the population point in the Arctic rebound thread.

Hello NS, I think we've been here before haven't we?

There are so many points to challenge in your short post...

1. Whose is it then? Simple, it belongs to all living things on the planet.


2. How do you know that nothing else has a consciousness? 


3. It is not about being able to perceive that there is a planet or being capable of making such a claim.  it was only a few tens of generations ago that man began to realise that there was a planet, so this is not a permanent state of affairs


4. I don't understand the last sentence at all.  You imply that becauses something can be given 'meaning' then it can be 'claimed' - sorry, I really don't know where to start to demolish this.

On the simplest level, as the supposedly most advanced species do we not have a duty to act responsibly towards the planet?  We only have the one and if we mess it up all species suffer.  Does not our 'higher intelligence' confer respoonsibilities?

On another level, if we are so wise do we not appreciate our dependency on a healthy and sustainable eco-system?  If we destroy too much we risk damaging that upon which we depend for our existence.   We are behaving like 'cut and burn' peasants, intent on short-term survival without regard for the longer term.   Fortunately for our ancestors there was another patch of ground somewhere to start again - we have but one Planet Earth.

What the human race was able to do when it numbered a few hundred million is altogether different to what it can afford to do when we are pushing through 7 billion and those 7 billion are consuming more per capita than ever before.

I think I have posed this to you before.   There must be a point when this cannot be sustained, so what is that point and when do we reach it? 

We cannot continue as we are - yet we seem incapable of change until it becomes unavoidable.  The latter carries consequences because there will be a lot of collateral damage if we wait until we have to change our ways.

I'll address the numbered points first:

1. Who says it belongs to all things on the planet? You? Give me a concrete reason why I should regard this point in any other way than opinion. Some would argue that the world is god's but I'm not religious I'm a humanist.

2. I don't know that for certain but no other creature is capable of organising a society in the way we do. No other living thing has dominance over others like humans.

3. I'm talking about now and the position that history has led us to.

4. Plants and animals do not understand the world in the way humans do, they are unaware of the very concept of a planet. If the planet has no meaning for them how can it belong to them? The very sense of belonging is a human concept, it is not shared by any other creature on earth. If it is only humans who can understand the world how can it not belong to us? You may believe that the world belongs to all life but it is only through collective culture and consciousness that you can proclaim so.

I answered the population point in the Arctic rebound thread.

Clearly we are not going to agree here.

Your first answer can be applied equally to your position so it really doesn't move us forward, i.e. give me a concrete reason why I should regard your position as anything other than opinion.... 

To deny that other living things on the planet are entitled to any consideration because we happen to be sentient is a most curious concept.  Clearly our superiority has a limit in your mind - we can apply that superiority in many ways but to include responsibility for the overall well-being of the planet is excluded.   Sorry, that is arbitrary and without rationality, IMO.

I have always regarded "dominance" as a very negative word: it implies a priority for the person dominating and an absence of interest on the effect on the person dominated.   How would you like to be dominated?  Not much, I expect.

Your comments all demonstrate a pervading anthropocentric view, which is all very well and nicely consistent but starts from a different place.  I really don't understand how anyone can argue against a need to protect the eco-system, if only out of self-interest.

Hi Northern Sky, I thought this might be a useful way of making my point....

As they say, a picture (well, OK a cartoon) is worth a thousand words....

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

[ooops]

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

[ooops]

oops?  Your point being?

I prefer this extract from that site:

"Herein lies the catch-22 of climate communication: scientists are trained to articulate the limits of their work, yet broader audiences (i.e. members of the public) instinctively lose confidence when they hear of uncertainty. While groups such as Resource Media advise against providing nuanced scientific explanations, this attempt at simplification is at the very core of recent critiques. Essentially, climate scientists hoping to improve their relationship with the public are damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t."

So, those not qualified to understand the nuances either ignore the message or cherry pick the bits that help to convince themselves that there's nothing going on.

Oops indeed....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/science-narrative-and-heresy/

I'm pretty sure you could find 10,000 scientists who don't believe the world is ~4,600,000,000 years old.  You can even find geologists who think it was created in 4004BC.

So, do we give them equal credence?  And if not, why not?

Religious fundamentalism is, IMO, a far bigger worry than ACC.   But maybe that's for another thread?