Trump, Climate Change, and Human Responsiblity

Attention!

This may be the one thing Republicans - or nihilist, 'realist', conservatives - appear to know best - at least when the people being manipulated are others - but the reality, of course, is quite the opposite: those who are inclined to manipulate the attention of others, are themselves being manipulated in the cruelest of ways - by their own selves.

It's quite simple: the Human brain mind, like all brain-minds in the natural world, works to manipulate information for the sake of its immediate system need. In every creature this 'system need' is different, but in social primates, the interest is fundamentally social - relational - and ultimately reducible to one core feeling: to recreate the conditions for a particular feeling state (in the present), although some people may reserve a "future end goal" to justify the ghastly injustices of the present, those who think along these lines rarely know what it means to suffer, and so are largely dissociated from the sorts of conditions that compel the formation of beliefs in the mind.

Said differently: advantaged people are structurally biased by their life experiences in a capitalistic, competition-based cultural environment to under-emphasize their passive experience of self, and over-emphasize their active experience of self. These two dimensions come with different brain-patterns, and so are instituted by completely different relational pathways. A competition environment is bound to aggravate feelings of low self-worth (how the self is experienced i.e. a passive awareness "forced upon" the self from the outside) and so it'll generate a reflexive self-organization were the thoughts and feelings which occur to the experiencing consciousness are "strength"-based - which is not surprising, since a competitive environment naturally supports the emergence of such traits by the way and manner other Human beings act. Like the classic chicken and egg problem that bewildered the ancients (it is no longer bewildering: evolution provides an explanation for how the problem emerges gradually over-time, and only confuses when people lose touch with the long-view of history, which shows how the power to cohere precedes the capacity to reproduce, and so the "chicken", precedes the "egg") the environment acts upon the individual, who then seeks to structurally recreate within themselves the sorts of relational forms they passively experience in their growth.

But in a competition world, the mind is too overwhelmed by the menace of threatening others to be much open to the subtleties afforded to a relaxed and compassionate mind. Instead of learning - and integrating - the passive knowledge of self-experience with the active knowledge of self-creation, the competitive mind is compelled by its ignorance and presumption of knowledge to pursue, again and again, like clockworks, to achieve mastery - strength - and power.

Most Republicans Deny Climate Change

This is sad, because the science underlying climate change - systems sciences - is itself becoming the epistemological basis for every field of human inquiry - physics, astrophysics, biology, geology, psychology - everything that exists is bracketed by the laws of physics - and so everything "emerges" through its laws.

If Republicans don't want to acknowledge climate change, than they are practically huffing the same attitude towards all the sciences, and ultimately, to the truth about the way reality works: they want to deny the systemic relations that govern, control and make real whatever "objective" reality we actually interact with. You cannot control the body, for instance, and achieve the obnoxious dream of "trans-humanism", without actually understanding how the system works i.e., without actually seeking to become aware of those conditions which bias your awareness during the knowledge seeking process.

Do you see what the problem is? Championing incoherence and irrationality has real-life consequences, epistemologically, for those who cultivate a hatred for "this world" i.e. an antinomian hatred of reason. This is strange and bizarre, because many people with a promothean ethic actually very much want to improve the Human condition - actually want to extend the physical human lifespan - yet how can this possibly happen outside the laws of what the physical world shows us? In order for technology to be useful, it needs to be bracketed and contextualized by science. Technology by itself is a lawlessness far worse than anything nature has hitherto produced. The egotist, in short, cannot be a scientist, because a scientist needs to regard his or her mind as a part of the process to be paid attention to: the self's activity - its constructor mode - may will or desire something to be true, itself deriving from a political sphere of the Self's interests, which may be in direct conflict with what the observed reality is suggesting by its behavior.

Climate Gone Wild

So we got egotists who don't pay attention to how their minds work - who overestimate the validity of every feeling which comes in to them, not interesting is probing its functional significance, preferring instead to believe that every feeling has a "mysterious source", as opposed to the far more banal - and rational - circularity that moves from passivity in self-experience at a young and impressionable age, to the gradual dominance of the active, constructor mode, full of its belief in "knowing" how things work - which is very much a function of the energy of emotional arousal - some people speak with such "passion" - that sheer energetics of the arousal prevent and impair the reasoning process - which is inherently subtle and nuanced, and so requires a control of the flow awareness, which recent neuroscience justifies by showing that the cells of the Orbitofrontal cortex - the most recently developed region of our brain - are inhibitory in nature: they operate by constraining the flow of feeling because it is recognized (projected) to lead to a future instability in self-other relationships that far exceeds the gain in the moment.

So what is the gain in the moment? As Chomsky describes it "Business leaders who are conducting propaganda campaigns to convince the population that anthropogenic global warming is a liberal hoax understand full well how grave is the threat, but they must maximize short-term profit and market-share. If they don't, someone else will.". This description enunciates the sort of dynamics that influence human awareness: expectation and anticipation: "this is what others will do" derives from what the self - the brain-mind - has become emotionally adapted to expect: manipulation and exploitation - dog eat dog - if you don't get it for yourself, someone else will take it.

Underneath this viciousness is an even more severe and threatening viciousness that is nothing other than pure evil - a nihilistic dystopia committed to destruction, simply because the conspirators are overwhelmed by their collective guilt - their inability to turn back from the precipice, and whatever they've done, commit to committing no more, and play a role in re-construction.

Anthropogenic Climate change is frightening precisely because WE DO NOT have any parallel from history. Since learning that the PETM (Pleistocene, Eocene Thermal Maximum) often referenced by climate deniers as an

example of a normal change in climate, scientists have since leaned that the warming of this period was around 1/10th of todays present warming, which of course makes perfect sense.

Although the climate inevitably changes, it has never changed on these present terms: never before has there been humans industrially organized to extract profit and value from nature with little real concern for the effects they were creating on the environment. Again – a similar issue as that which affects how we perceive: an over-emphasis on the activity of self-experience (pleasure, enjoyment, etc) and a corresponding absence of interest in simply going with what the reflexive self instinctively generates – not on the basis of truth, but on the basis of maintaining some set of conditions that bring about this desirable state.

Just consider all that we do:

- deforestation (removal of trees that serve the role of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, and pumping out oxygen)
- Burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas)

Between these two activities, we both release large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, and remove an organic sink for the extraction of C02 from the atmosphere.

This is not it, though. We are also producing life-stock at a scale never-done before, which requires us to transform our physical environments to feed these life-stock, which by the way, contribute as much as 30% to anthropogenic climate change through the release of methane.

There are all sorts of inputs into atmospheric change that come from things done in various ways: burning hydrocarbons and cutting down trees.

The real thing to fear comes from what this process may trigger: positive feedback. There are still many other carbon-sinks throughout our Earth, holding their reserves, but if the planet were to continue heating, will release their reserves, and in the process, increase the volatility that greenhouse gases induce on the climate.

Take all the dead biomatter locked into the Tundra of the global north, or the carbonates that have sunk to the bottom of the oceans, but which may be forced to the surface when sea water becomes warmer and starts to turn the water at the bottom upwards.

In a very real sense, rising ocean-waters, floods and droughts are the most predictable worries. The question is: how much have we sped up the process? And how volatile can natures processes become as a function of our severe underestimation of our influence upon it?

Its not that most republicans dont believe in climate change, It is that they dont believe it is a fiscal problem.

And they also rightly dont believe a "green Tax" will solve it.

those who are inclined to manipulate the attention of others, are themselves being manipulated in the cruelest of ways - by their own selves.

Sorry for your troubles.

I did enjoy your mental gymnastics of attempting to connect 'climate change' with 'anthropogenic climate change'.

While you are selling fear, it should delight you to know:

Our energy consumption has been shifting towards greener energy for over a hundred years. The primary fuel was coal in the 1800's, the compound has more carbon atoms than oil. The vast majority of our energy consumption is now from oil, but is shifting steadily towards natural gas, which has even less carbon atoms in the compound; ie cleaner. After natural gas, and the increase in technology we gain from decades into the future, hydrogen will be the primary fuel source, which has no carbon atoms.

Crisis averted. Then again, all climate change that has occurred before humans is not due to humans, and that type of climate change, is still going to happen. You forgot humans are part of the natural environment, like it or not.

I'm for It! Lets all do away with the real problem, which is fossil fuels. Until you quit the Bollocks and address the freakin elephant in the bloody room, this is all nothing but hot air. It is fossil fuels that are the major source of pollution on this planet. So lets do away with BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, et cetera. What are the chances of that happening? Not bloody likely! Because big oil greases the palms of the political class! So take your carbon tax and STICK IT! That's just another scam to rip of the working class! Keep you bloody Al Gore on your side of the bloody pond!

originally posted by: GodEmperor

. The primary fuel was coal in the 1800's, the compound has more carbon atoms than oil. T

I don't know what chemistry book you ysed, but that statement is meaningless. Bituminous coal is about 50% carbon by weight. Oil is an average 85% -95%carbon by weight. Fuel Oil is C20H42, for a total molecular weight of 282 gm/mol, 240 grams of which is carbon, with an atomic weight of 12.0107. What is really important is the amount of carbon per energy unit. Coal contains about 12,500 BTU, or 1.6x10^7 joules. Refined auto gas has very close to the same energy content per pound. A Standard Cubic Foot of natural gas is somewhat less. A pound or Uranium, by the way, has 200,000 times as much energy content. Another chemical factor to consider is how much oxygen needs to be burned to produce the fuel/air mixture necessary to produce the combustion necessary for the task. Another consideration is the actual makeup of the energy source with respect to contaminants which reduce energy content and carbon sourcing. Coal, for instance, contains about 5% sulphur and 5% ash, by weight. There traces of other pollutants in coal, like uranium, nitrogen, chlorine and sodium. The number of certain atoms in a molecule doesn't tell you much.

This may be the one thing Republicans - or nihilist, 'realist', conservatives - appear to know best - at least when the people being manipulated are others - but the reality, of course, is quite the opposite: those who are inclined to manipulate the attention of others, are themselves being manipulated in the cruelest of ways - by their own selves.

No, and NO.

Climate change is manipulation because conservatives critics solution to what's been happening for over 5 billion years is WHAT ?

The same AGENDA they have been pushing since they mainstreamed that word PROGRESSIVE.

Right people.

Something the earth has been doing for EONS is a 'problem' !

a reply to: neo96

theres a glaring and elementary difference between natural occurring phenomena which is naturally balanced vs the superficially created, and disproportionate inputs and outputs of man since probably the pre industrial age.

--------------

for anyone to say our ways do not have a knock on effect on the earth is absent minded. we dont even have to get into the ozone and co2 and methane, we can just look at our local marine life, or deforestation rates, land which cannot grow crops due to chemical rain, etc etc.

everything superficial humans do effects the environment negatively. we still cant get rid of plastics and certain foams, yet we never stop making them.

the earth is not ours, we dont own this planet. we cant just say f' it since we can readily see the more complex effects of our ways in plain sight they dont exist... or 'China' created it... ffs.
i wonder in about a couple of thousand years what the state of this planet will be... but hey lets not worry about it because its still 2k17 and it will be a while until harsher and possibly species altering effects swoop in...

we will be the absent minded future ancestors of a lamenting and fist pumping human race.

originally posted by: CHONGO
I'm for It! Lets all do away with the real problem, which is fossil fuels. Until you quit the Bollocks and address the freakin elephant in the bloody room, this is all nothing but hot air. It is fossil fuels that are the major source of pollution on this planet. So lets do away with BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, et cetera.

Regardless of the ecconomics --- when there is no electricity everyone will be pissing and whining ---- no one is going to say "oh I voted against the pipeline" it will be "some one fell down on the job"

The only "Green" that Climate Changers are thinking about is the "Color of Money"

a reply to: Gothmog

I find the demonization of fossil fuels interesting. Is it that people have no concept of their importance in our society?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: neo96

the earth is not ours, we dont own this planet.

LOL, wow, what reality do you live in? I guess whenever humans want to undertake a project we should give ants, rats, and all other animals a vote on the matter? Just because I have a bat living in the attic doesn't mean it's his house. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that have potential, and even though we waste it most of the time, that makes the planet OURS. I know liberals hate human existence, but you can't change reality.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Global warming is BS and has already been disproved especially related to CO2. As temperature rises due to solar and orbital effects, more life is developed from warmer temps, meaning more mammals equals more Co2, which is why CO2 lags temperature increase by 2 decades. Most life is found near the equator and not the poles for a reason. Global Warming BS was devised by the bankers to force people trade carbon credits for a cost through their banker owned carbon exchanges. Get over it. Talk about more important things like ocean pollution and you will have an audience.

50 some-odd years ago, some asshats were probably sitting around a table and wondering how they could make money from nothing. One probably looked outside and saw the sun setting and said, "Why not tax the sun, why not tax the weather?"

They probably finished smoking whatever they were smoking and thought about it for a bit.

Knowing that the climate naturally fluctuates, they had the perfect plan.

Convince enough people that it was getting warmer or colder (depending on the natural fluctuation) and they could manipulate a population into paying for the sun to rise, the seas to calm, the clouds to form.

I don't know when science became infallible. I don't know when science became the new god where speaking out against it was considered hearsay. But it was done rather quickly and cost a bundle.

a reply to: Astrocyte

There are two consequences of thinking/acting
Creation(life) V Destruction(death) eg. plant a plant or cut down a tree

There are two reasons for thinking/acting

Have to V Want to eg.motivation by feelings of fear or pleasure

Have to and want to are brought about by our social teachings/rules/laws/opinions - unless the persons conscience (through natural experience) is allowed to form on it's own.
There is no thing natural about the way we raise people anymore.

As powerful beings we have the power to create because we want to and destroy because we want to.
We have the power to create because we have to and destroy because we have to.

SO who is teaching you your have to's and want to's? I can assure you they were not formed naturally!
What is their dream for this world.
A world Created by Love or Destroyed by Hate?

I know which way we are sliding and it can be reversed by us Wanting to Create a natural world again.
Instead of Having to destroy the world just trying to stay alive.

Where Life is more important than money - for joy is the only true and worthy currency.

eg 1+1 = infinity, the amount of seed and plants produced by 2 plants is infinity and life is infinate.
eg. 1-1 = extinction, the destruction of 1 seed is infinite destruction.
Not the sort of math we are used to or taught in school but is non the less real and provable by science.

Maybe that is why the bible states
"Do not spill thy seed".
"May we all be judged by our fruit"
Not religious by the way but I did Have to go to school / indoctrination classes.

How many plants and animals did you create/destroy today?.
How much of your life do you take responsibility for?
The space you have created for your children will it grow better every day or crumble and decay around them?
Will the decaying battery's, plastics, cell phones, mansions bring your children joy or will the sight of their homeland dying, bring them fear. DO we really want to end up like in the futuristic movie Wall-E.

Life is eternal and so is destruction. Everything that is not life is destruction.
think about that next time you get in the car and destroy the next generations air.
Every plastic wrapper every metal appliance is the veins of creation being destroyed.
We must _javascript:icon('') said the hippocrate on the computer.
Well at least I am not a computer yet and hopefully have given you all some more food for thought.
Loving at you now!

Free Land For All
=
Freedom Forever

a reply to: F4guy

I don't know what you are rambling about but, I am right:

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

www.eia.gov...

So sad. The entire post is based on the straw man argument that Republicans don't believe in climate change. Obviously you nor I can speak for all 60+ million, but I'd wager most of them don't believe in MAN MADE Climate change. There's no disputing the scientific proof that the Earth has warmed and cooled countless times throughout ancient history. Ice Age anyone?

You'll never get anyone with half a brain to believe taxing the USA will do anything to change the climate. Myself, like most everyone else I know (Dem and Rep a like) all believe in taking care of the environment. And we all laugh or get pissed that Al Gore and Leo and John Kerry fly enormous private planes all over the world and then go home to their dozen mega mansions all the while trying to lecture the average joe on OUR consumption footprints.

a reply to: Astrocyte

We are also producing life-stock at a scale never-done before, which requires us to transform our physical environments to feed these life-stock, which by the way, contribute as much as 30% to anthropogenic climate change through the release of methane.

No worries, we'll just tax the food itself right?

Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

a reply to: Astrocyte

You lost me right here:

If Republicans don't want to acknowledge climate change, than they are practically huffing the same attitude towards all the sciences, and ultimately, to the truth about the way reality works

Firstly, I am not a Republican, yet I can clearly see the science surrounding climate is being specifically twisted into a political pop-sci paranoia. Any time politics uses science, politics destroys science.

Secondly, questioning scientific conclusions is not denying science. Questioning scientific conclusions is the very heart of what makes science work. If Einstein had not questioned Newton's Laws of Motion, you probably wouldn't have high-speed Internet right now. The satellites that allow us to communicate so effectively would not be possible if the time dilation of the lower gravitational field in orbit was not considered. Luckily, even though most scientists of the day thought Einstein was a quack, a respect for the scientific method allowed his theory to be tested (and eventually confirmed). Some day, someone may question Relativity and progress our knowledge further.

But not in Global Warming. Oh, no! Where Global Warming is concerned, the scientific method becomes heresy. The mention of errors in present models brings rebuke. Failure to fully accept proposed hypotheses is unconscionable. We will allow only those scientists we agree with to speak out, and look to our 'leaders' for ways to solve a problem that isn't even fully understood yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Astrocyte

I don't think anyone is denying climate change or that the climate does change. Do you have a theory regarding why it is the alarmists seem to overlook that?

The problems and disagreement stem from things like the carbon credits confidence game and a disagreement as to how much human activities are to blame and how much of it is in fact natural occurrences we have no control over.

Another aspect is will ignoring the fact that alternative energy is so expensive and unusable in many parts of the world, the costs would be prohibitive and do a great deal of harm to economies. Knowing that, how exactly does increasing the lack of money by forcing it on people, help to fund the needed research and development. How will that not make it worse, even if the alarmist rhetoric is correct?

Another thing that bothers me is that the activists don't seem to care that in the US, things have improved dramatically just in my own lifetime and seem to not even have a concern about the countries where most of the future pollution will come from?



More taxes and carbon credit scams are just that, scams. They will not change a damn thing in the end and in fact may make it worse. Remember the cigarette taxes and payouts over the lawsuits that were supposed to pay for the health care of the victims? How did that work out after it went into the general funds of governments and never went to help the victims of smoking? The exact same thing will happen with this and it would all be wasted or go into lobbyists pockets, so they can go home to their houses that use more energy than a dozen normal homes, arriving by private jet and hoping into their full size SUV's while laughing all the way.



Then you have all the times over the years where we were told in just as certain terms things that were simply not true, but did result in a flood of research funding for the same people who mislead us. Trust them now? Yeah sure.

In the early 1970's in college it was beat into our heads the ice age was coming, the food would be gone shortly causing mass starvation and the trees north of the Canadian border would dead by 2000. Those involved were just as convinced they had the answers as those involved in trying to shove it down peoples throats now. Do you blame us for thinking that it is just another scam for research funding by yelling the sky is falling?

Instead of being insulting to people and lecturing us on things we all know, maybe put on your critical thinking cap for a bit? We have all been fed a load of lies by activists for over half a century and people are not just going to roll over for it again, nor accept the lack of logic. The more prosperous we are, the more we can do. Why ignore that part of it?