ChatterBank3 mins ago
Will We Listen To 11,000 Scientists?
65 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Individuals can do absolutely nothing to alter climate change, if indeed it can actually be altered, which is highly debatable.
Society as a whole dictates the future, and its politicians have the ability to change fundamentally the way the world operates but -
until such changes provide financial reward and political capital in the form of votes, preferably both, but at present, neither, then nothing will change.
Is Al Gore - a committed and fervent environmentalist president? No, Donald Trump - a giant sceptic who is dismantling climate change legislation as fast as he can get it passed, is president.
The message begins and ends right there.
Society as a whole dictates the future, and its politicians have the ability to change fundamentally the way the world operates but -
until such changes provide financial reward and political capital in the form of votes, preferably both, but at present, neither, then nothing will change.
Is Al Gore - a committed and fervent environmentalist president? No, Donald Trump - a giant sceptic who is dismantling climate change legislation as fast as he can get it passed, is president.
The message begins and ends right there.
I suspect it's only "highly debatable" as it suits some people to pretend that it is. But the fact remains that the present epoch of Climate Change is primarily driven by human activity, and therefore humans are perfectly capable of doing their part to undo that damage.
Strictly speaking it has to be acknowledged that it would be harder to reverse the changes than to get them going, as some of the damage has already been done and is likely to propagate still further no matter what. But even if you take the pessimistic view that it's already too late to stop at least some amount of change, there is at the very least incentive to make sure it can't get any worse.
I agree with the point that Trump's actions in particular don't help the matter. But luckily he'll be gone either next year or in five years' time, so at some point it will be possible to revisit and undo his policy decisions on Climate Change.
Strictly speaking it has to be acknowledged that it would be harder to reverse the changes than to get them going, as some of the damage has already been done and is likely to propagate still further no matter what. But even if you take the pessimistic view that it's already too late to stop at least some amount of change, there is at the very least incentive to make sure it can't get any worse.
I agree with the point that Trump's actions in particular don't help the matter. But luckily he'll be gone either next year or in five years' time, so at some point it will be possible to revisit and undo his policy decisions on Climate Change.
Zacs - // ‘ Individuals can do absolutely nothing to alter climate change’
Jeez, that’s an appalling attitude. Thank goodness the generation that thinks this way is dying out. Every journey begins with a single step. //
It's not 'an attitude' - appalling or otherwise, it is a statement of fact.
I did not say that individuals who collectively take action cannot alter situations - so please don't be rude to me about something I did not say.
My point is, an individual cannot alter anything that affects the planet, it requires collective action by individuals, as a group.
My statement is a fact, so I'll thank you not to misinterpret it, and then be rude about something I have not said.
Jeez, that’s an appalling attitude. Thank goodness the generation that thinks this way is dying out. Every journey begins with a single step. //
It's not 'an attitude' - appalling or otherwise, it is a statement of fact.
I did not say that individuals who collectively take action cannot alter situations - so please don't be rude to me about something I did not say.
My point is, an individual cannot alter anything that affects the planet, it requires collective action by individuals, as a group.
My statement is a fact, so I'll thank you not to misinterpret it, and then be rude about something I have not said.
naomi - // //Individuals can do absolutely nothing to alter climate change’//
According to Jim, a self-appointed expert on climate change, that appears to be right. He says that individuals making efforts to save energy will make no difference. //
I'd have to agree with jim then.
Individuals never have and never will make any difference to any major issue that affects people, locally, nationally, or globally - it takes combined efforts from groups of individuals to influence, or change, anything, which, ironically, according to some people, includes the climate.
According to Jim, a self-appointed expert on climate change, that appears to be right. He says that individuals making efforts to save energy will make no difference. //
I'd have to agree with jim then.
Individuals never have and never will make any difference to any major issue that affects people, locally, nationally, or globally - it takes combined efforts from groups of individuals to influence, or change, anything, which, ironically, according to some people, includes the climate.
Zacs - // 'Individuals can do absolutely nothing to alter climate change' and
'I did not say that individuals who collectively take action cannot alter situations'
are directly contradictory. //
At the risk of appearing pedantic - an individual who joins with one or more individual in order to change the course of something ceases to be an individual in that context.
'I did not say that individuals who collectively take action cannot alter situations'
are directly contradictory. //
At the risk of appearing pedantic - an individual who joins with one or more individual in order to change the course of something ceases to be an individual in that context.
Andy-hughes: //My point is, an individual cannot alter anything that affects the planet, it requires collective action by individuals, as a group.//
You appear not to understand the word "fact"
You recognise that when many individuals coordinate their actions, the impact can be seen.
It stands to analysis that if a million people can have an impact on something, then one person can also have an impact, albeit a million time smaller. It may be that the impact of an individual's actions are not measurable, but being unable to measure something is not the same as not existing
If I choose to reduce my electricity consumption, it has a direct and positive impact on the emissions from my local power station.
That will have an effect on the amount of carbon dioxide that is available to absorb energy and re-radiate it as infra-red, and contributing to change in climate.
When thousands or millions of people do the same, the impact becomes non-negligible.
By claiming that a demonstrably untrue statement is a "fact" , you are guilty of misinformation. You also promote the attitude that it is OK to stand by and watch as the climate changes, avoiding taking action.
You suggest that the ability of humans to change planetary conditions is debatable. Again, this is misinformation that suits your choice to avoid action.
After the effects of CFCs were discovered and the ozone layer thinned above the south pole, humans took action and that damage has now been largely reversed.
You can choose to take no action, but that is the politics of despair.
In that choice you are deciding that you are not prepared to make any effort to support another generation that cares about the environmental conditions they will have to cope with in 50 years' time. Each journey (as they say) begins with a single step.
The reality of climate change is a proven fact.
Some would call it a climate crisis.
Quite apart from the hard, published scientific evidence – and the call of 11,000 scientists who are directly involved in the subject – there is ample anecdotal evidence, from increased wildfires in California and Australia and Russia to more intense storms in the South Atlantic that can blow Albatross chicks off the nest, or melting glaciers and ice caps that affect feeding cycles of walrus, polar bears and others.
You appear not to understand the word "fact"
You recognise that when many individuals coordinate their actions, the impact can be seen.
It stands to analysis that if a million people can have an impact on something, then one person can also have an impact, albeit a million time smaller. It may be that the impact of an individual's actions are not measurable, but being unable to measure something is not the same as not existing
If I choose to reduce my electricity consumption, it has a direct and positive impact on the emissions from my local power station.
That will have an effect on the amount of carbon dioxide that is available to absorb energy and re-radiate it as infra-red, and contributing to change in climate.
When thousands or millions of people do the same, the impact becomes non-negligible.
By claiming that a demonstrably untrue statement is a "fact" , you are guilty of misinformation. You also promote the attitude that it is OK to stand by and watch as the climate changes, avoiding taking action.
You suggest that the ability of humans to change planetary conditions is debatable. Again, this is misinformation that suits your choice to avoid action.
After the effects of CFCs were discovered and the ozone layer thinned above the south pole, humans took action and that damage has now been largely reversed.
You can choose to take no action, but that is the politics of despair.
In that choice you are deciding that you are not prepared to make any effort to support another generation that cares about the environmental conditions they will have to cope with in 50 years' time. Each journey (as they say) begins with a single step.
The reality of climate change is a proven fact.
Some would call it a climate crisis.
Quite apart from the hard, published scientific evidence – and the call of 11,000 scientists who are directly involved in the subject – there is ample anecdotal evidence, from increased wildfires in California and Australia and Russia to more intense storms in the South Atlantic that can blow Albatross chicks off the nest, or melting glaciers and ice caps that affect feeding cycles of walrus, polar bears and others.
Rationalist - // Andy-hughes: //My point is, an individual cannot alter anything that affects the planet, it requires collective action by individuals, as a group.//
You appear not to understand the word "fact" //
Since my quote does not refer to the word 'fact', I am unsure what evidence you have for assuming that I don't understand its meaning.
// You recognise that when many individuals coordinate their actions, the impact can be seen. //
I do.
// It stands to analysis that if a million people can have an impact on something, then one person can also have an impact, albeit a million time smaller. It may be that the impact of an individual's actions are not measurable, but being unable to measure something is not the same as not existing //
On that basis, it is you who does not understand the meaning of the word 'impact'. The dictionary defines impact as having 'a marked effect or influence', or to 'have a strong effect on someone or something'.
If an 'individual's actions are not measurable' as you state, then they cannot be classed as having or creating an impact!
// If I choose to reduce my electricity consumption, it has a direct and positive impact on the emissions from my local power station.
That will have an effect on the amount of carbon dioxide that is available to absorb energy and re-radiate it as infra-red, and contributing to change in climate. //
It does, but that does not equate to the concept of your reduction having anything approaching a significant impact (there's that word again!) on the reduction of emissions in any measurable term, so on that basis, it is without any meaningful effect whatsoever.
// When thousands or millions of people do the same, the impact becomes non-negligible. //
It does - but then it ceases to be the action of an individual and becomes the action of a mass of people, which is entirely different - again my point is that the individual can do nothing, but groups of individuals can.
// By claiming that a demonstrably untrue statement is a "fact" , you are guilty of misinformation. //
My statement is true, and it is a fact, it is not misinformation - I have outlined why my statement is true in my response here.
// You also promote the attitude that it is OK to stand by and watch as the climate changes, avoiding taking action. //
I 'promote' no such thing. At no point have I ever said, or implied, that avoidance of action is acceptable - that is something you have decided to make up, and then criticise me for, which is without merit.
// You suggest that the ability of humans to change planetary conditions is debatable. // I believe that to be a fair point - there is suggestion that humans can alter planetary conditions, but since none of us will live long enough to see if that is true, that is a suggestion, not a fact.
// Again, this is misinformation that suits your choice to avoid action. //
Again, this is not 'misinformation' because it is a true statement, and I have no 'choice to avoid action’ because that is something you have made up.
// After the effects of CFCs were discovered and the ozone layer thinned above the south pole, humans took action and that damage has now been largely reversed. //
No argument – no point made, but no argument with a fact.
// You can choose to take no action, but that is the politics of despair. //
I can, but I haven’t, please don’t assume you understand a position when I have not stated one.
// In that choice you are deciding that you are not prepared to make any effort to support another generation that cares about the environmental conditions they will have to cope with in 50 years' time. Each journey (as they say) begins with a single step. //
Once again, you are assuming that I have ‘made a choice’ when I have given no such indication – making up the views of someone else, stating them as facts, and then criticising them is not good debate – please desist.
ctnd…...
You appear not to understand the word "fact" //
Since my quote does not refer to the word 'fact', I am unsure what evidence you have for assuming that I don't understand its meaning.
// You recognise that when many individuals coordinate their actions, the impact can be seen. //
I do.
// It stands to analysis that if a million people can have an impact on something, then one person can also have an impact, albeit a million time smaller. It may be that the impact of an individual's actions are not measurable, but being unable to measure something is not the same as not existing //
On that basis, it is you who does not understand the meaning of the word 'impact'. The dictionary defines impact as having 'a marked effect or influence', or to 'have a strong effect on someone or something'.
If an 'individual's actions are not measurable' as you state, then they cannot be classed as having or creating an impact!
// If I choose to reduce my electricity consumption, it has a direct and positive impact on the emissions from my local power station.
That will have an effect on the amount of carbon dioxide that is available to absorb energy and re-radiate it as infra-red, and contributing to change in climate. //
It does, but that does not equate to the concept of your reduction having anything approaching a significant impact (there's that word again!) on the reduction of emissions in any measurable term, so on that basis, it is without any meaningful effect whatsoever.
// When thousands or millions of people do the same, the impact becomes non-negligible. //
It does - but then it ceases to be the action of an individual and becomes the action of a mass of people, which is entirely different - again my point is that the individual can do nothing, but groups of individuals can.
// By claiming that a demonstrably untrue statement is a "fact" , you are guilty of misinformation. //
My statement is true, and it is a fact, it is not misinformation - I have outlined why my statement is true in my response here.
// You also promote the attitude that it is OK to stand by and watch as the climate changes, avoiding taking action. //
I 'promote' no such thing. At no point have I ever said, or implied, that avoidance of action is acceptable - that is something you have decided to make up, and then criticise me for, which is without merit.
// You suggest that the ability of humans to change planetary conditions is debatable. // I believe that to be a fair point - there is suggestion that humans can alter planetary conditions, but since none of us will live long enough to see if that is true, that is a suggestion, not a fact.
// Again, this is misinformation that suits your choice to avoid action. //
Again, this is not 'misinformation' because it is a true statement, and I have no 'choice to avoid action’ because that is something you have made up.
// After the effects of CFCs were discovered and the ozone layer thinned above the south pole, humans took action and that damage has now been largely reversed. //
No argument – no point made, but no argument with a fact.
// You can choose to take no action, but that is the politics of despair. //
I can, but I haven’t, please don’t assume you understand a position when I have not stated one.
// In that choice you are deciding that you are not prepared to make any effort to support another generation that cares about the environmental conditions they will have to cope with in 50 years' time. Each journey (as they say) begins with a single step. //
Once again, you are assuming that I have ‘made a choice’ when I have given no such indication – making up the views of someone else, stating them as facts, and then criticising them is not good debate – please desist.
ctnd…...
….
It is – no argument.
// Some would call it a climate crisis. //
Some would – again, no argument, but no point.
// Quite apart from the hard, published scientific evidence – and the call of 11,000 scientists who are directly involved in the subject – there is ample anecdotal evidence, from increased wildfires in California and Australia and Russia to more intense storms in the South Atlantic that can blow Albatross chicks off the nest, or melting glaciers and ice caps that affect feeding cycles of walrus, polar bears and others. //
Again, no argument, and no point.
In conclusion - if I sidestep your tendency to state facts with no reason, and your irksome habit of attributing thoughts and views to me that I don't have and have not expressed, and then criticising me for them - I have managed to dismantle what I believe to be your point - that individuals can have an impact.
They cannot.
It is – no argument.
// Some would call it a climate crisis. //
Some would – again, no argument, but no point.
// Quite apart from the hard, published scientific evidence – and the call of 11,000 scientists who are directly involved in the subject – there is ample anecdotal evidence, from increased wildfires in California and Australia and Russia to more intense storms in the South Atlantic that can blow Albatross chicks off the nest, or melting glaciers and ice caps that affect feeding cycles of walrus, polar bears and others. //
Again, no argument, and no point.
In conclusion - if I sidestep your tendency to state facts with no reason, and your irksome habit of attributing thoughts and views to me that I don't have and have not expressed, and then criticising me for them - I have managed to dismantle what I believe to be your point - that individuals can have an impact.
They cannot.
Andy HUghes you had the choice of being pernickety and quibbling over words like impact, which is commonly used to mean any effect , or accepting you were wrong.
You chose to be pernicketty. In doing so you demonstrate that you have learned from right-wing politicians and other purveyors of misinformtion that, when called out, you double down and repeat your lies.
Like so many on here, you refuse to see the evidence in front of you.
There really is no point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that they can successfully argue that black is white.
I thank you for your time.
You chose to be pernicketty. In doing so you demonstrate that you have learned from right-wing politicians and other purveyors of misinformtion that, when called out, you double down and repeat your lies.
Like so many on here, you refuse to see the evidence in front of you.
There really is no point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that they can successfully argue that black is white.
I thank you for your time.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
How it Works5 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
