Republicans IN; Climate Change OUT

I think that's pretty clear, at least for the next 2 years there will be nothing done in American politics about Climate change.

This being the case, lets use our imaginations. First, let me define imagination: imagination is the ability to think.

That seems almost paltry but it isn't. To be able to think - about anything - is actually limited by our emotions. If were feeling a certain way about something - and it doesn't need to be conscious - our minds simply wont think about it. It's a collapse of the power to imagine.

So lets imagine. The year is 2035. It has now become unbearably obvious that climate change is happening and we actually need to do something to offset it. The proposed solution: geoengineering. And, oh, maybe we can make it profitable for private investors!!!

So lets imagine, shall we, what our sky will look like after a few rounds of seeding our stratosphere with sulfides.

First, imagine, how do you feel when you look upwards and see a blue sky? What is the natural human reaction to such a beautiful sight? Peace of mind? Ease? Happiness? All true. As any attuned person would know, weather has subtle effects on our emotional-vitality levels. And thus, how we think and behave with one another.

Now, imagine. It is well known that the geoengineering proposal will make our blue skies a thing of the past. Everyday, you wake up and up above you - and all around you - is this white misty color.

As a psychologist I am interested in what sort of effect this contextual "feel" - which we cannot in the least bit escape - will have on our consciousness, and in particular, how it'll predispose us towards one another in our relational behaviors.

Can you imagine, one year, two years, three years? Would it be that hard to imagine vast increases in depression, criminal behavior and suicide?

Wouldn't that be the perfect excoriation for the way we had lived? For what we were too dimwitted to notice? That desires have limits? That responsibility is a necessary feature of human existence?

But alas, that is not yet today. So why imagine it, right? Why not continue on with what were doing, and dont worry about that future time period when we'll speak openly about terraforming; and, when that happens, don't even think about it: just don't. The future isn't now. Let the people of tomorrow - which may be us! in our 50s or 60s - deal with the macabre prospect of a world occluded by a white mist.

The blue skies of yesteryear. We can thank corporations and their hunger for profit! And we can thank people for their hunger for consuming!

Were all to blame: no one lies outside the context which causes these dynamics to work as they do. So, in fact, just offload all blame away. And let the blame game begin when the skies are white and our minds are more #ed than they already are.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
...for the next 2 years there will be nothing done in American politics about Climate change.

Tell us, what can "politics" do about this alleged climate change? Can "politics" stop the sun from rising, or prevent the moon from going around the earth?

The climate changes over time, it has been recorded in the strata of rock from long before the industrial revolution. Did MAN cause climate change then? Nope. Chances are, we haven't caused it now. It's all about politics and taxes and making certain people rich (not Republicans, either). At least you're subconsciously aware that it's political, even though you might not know it.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think the affects of AGW, if it's really as advertised, will be noticed much sooner and reaction will be much more publicly acceptable. It just seems right now, none of the doomsday scenarios are happening and the public isn't sure about all the predictions. Maybe I am wrong on that, but I kind of see it that way.

I keep hoping some groups will spring up and offer some alternatives to burning gasoline, thus helping with a multitude of issues, the least of which is AGW, but defeating big oil on that front may never happen in our lifetime.

On the geo-engineering front, I think most of those involved are more worried about the unforeseen problems that could occur and will be hesitant to implement any of the wacko ideas unless no other option exists. At least I sure hope it's that way. Just watch out for the giant space mirror. that one scares me. (what if it breaks? all that bad luck)

a reply to: Astrocyte

Much more science fiction than science.

Climate change is real. But it is not something new- even during the course of human history. Otherwise we wouldn't be finding ancient cities burried beneath the sand or under the seas.

I believe man will adapt. Each new generation will see their 'world' as normal.

I suppose if YOU lived for another 500 years or so, you might fall into a deep depression or be moved to criminal behavior. But your geat, great grandchildren will just see you as that nutty relative.

Astrocyte, there you go with those pesky facts again.

Look at the responses you've already gotten; the Republicans aren't interested in facts, but in BELIEF.

"I believe that 97% of all climatologists are wrong."

"I believe that God has a plan for the Earth."

"I believe the world was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old."

Good on you for trying, but you're barking up a tree with these folks.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
If were feeling a certain way about something - and it doesn't need to be conscious - our minds simply wont think about it. It's a collapse of the power to imagine.

And yet, you, as a psychologist, bring your imagined scenario to the table?

Methinks your imagination is running wild because of your emotional attachment to the issue. I think your hypothesis on how emotion affects imagination is bass ackwards.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Astrocyte, there you go with those pesky facts again.
...the Republicans aren't interested in facts, but in BELIEF.

Your ignorance is showing; it's not just republicans that think AGW is a load of horse s#!t. On the same note, not all progressives/liberals buy into the AGW argument, either.

The only people that think the way you do are ones that believe (yes, yours is a belief system, too) we have figured it all out because politicians and politicized "scientists" say so. Science tells us otherwise, but in order for you and others who believe like you, you have to set aside all "sides'" scientific data and only focus on one--that's not science. That's selective ignorance.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Its precisely these sorts of confabulations that interest and worry me.

Does 97% of climate scientist agreement mean nothing to you? or Does it imply some wide-spread conspiracy?

That's whats interesting to me. I started a thread 2 days ago just about this: by claiming "taxes" - to make people rich (even though most countries actually endorse a carbon-tax of FOSSIL FUEL industries that will be paid back to the regular people at year end) you are essentially ascribing conspiratorial motives to individuals - human beings just like you - who were babies once, children once, planned careers in science - not very lucrative - simply because they loved science.

And now, the people with the most sophisticated understanding of climate science are being accused of engaging in a massive conspiracy. In fact, 97% of them - and that is a ridiculously high number.

Explain to me why you think this? And how you think it is justified to this?

The theme of this thread is imagination. Can you think about this? or will you let your feelings - your strong attachment to the ideas you just shoveled in my face - distract you from understanding and addressing this question.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Who employs climate scientists, directly or through funding?

Therein lies the rub.

a reply to: Astrocyte

If you truly considered the history of scientific consensus building, you wouldn't be so enamored by the 97% number- assuming that is even true.

Perhaps one should use less 'imagination' and instead deploy some sober critical well-researched thinking less polluted by politics.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, it's my ignorance that's showing. Tell me Slap, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old as well? Because, you know, there are a handful of quote-unquote creation scientists who believe the same thing, so you're not alone.

Nope, mine is not a "belief" system, and all opinions are not equal. I base my reality on the best facts available, and remain open to new evidence.

Can you cite what I believe about either climate change or AGW? Or are you going off on what you BELIEVE I think?

It's funny to hear folks like you try to mumble about science, and quote talking points from the right-wing.

From Scientific American July 2014:

The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming.

So yeah, it's just a matter of "my belief" and my "ignorance" ... are you sure you know what those terms mean?

The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention.

But, feel free to keep publishing your ignorance and belief-based nonsense, unsupported by the most basic facts.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Are you absolutely 100% sure about all that?

You know and understand the EPA has pending rules and regulations right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, it's my ignorance that's showing. Tell me Slap, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old as well? Because, you know, there are a handful of quote-unquote creation scientists who believe the same thing, so you're not alone.

Nope, mine is not a "belief" system, and all opinions are not equal. I base my reality on the best facts available, and remain open to new evidence.

Can you cite what I believe about either climate change or AGW? Or are you going off on what you BELIEVE I think?

It's funny to hear folks like you try to mumble about science, and quote talking points from the right-wing.

From Scientific American July 2014:

The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming.

So yeah, it's just a matter of "my belief" and my "ignorance" ... are you sure you know what those terms mean?

The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention.

But, feel free to keep publishing your ignorance and belief-based nonsense, unsupported by the most basic facts.

Would you known about "climate change" if the media hadn't told you about it? If Al Gore hadn't made that stupid movie? Do you think that maybe they're selling you a bill of goods? Why would you be skeptical of some things that the MSM says, but climate change, oh no, that is gospel. Come on, now. Are you really that gullible?

I usually don't get involved in the climate change issue, because not much comes out of such discussions, but there is evidence from ice core samples that show we have a problem. CO2 levels were fairly consistent over the last 100,000 years, until the industrial revolution came around. That times period marks the beginning of increasing CO2 levels.

Is that just coincidence? I think not.

Sadly, this is a political issue, not just a scientific/humanity issue.

One side want's to push "green initiatives" and alternative means of energy productions, etc. The other side thinks it's all mumbo jumbo, doesn't seem to care about the environment and just stands by big business with no concern about what they put back in to the environment.

If you look at it from outside the politically-driven mindset, it's obvious who we should side with on this issue. Even if GW was complete nonsense, we should be trying to protect the environment and look for alternative means of energy production.

Sure, it's going to cost us some money, a lot of it in fact, but what is our global health worth? Is the almighty dollar worth more than a planet that cannot be simply printed off like a US buck?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I know.

People love to think - especially those things which support their evolutionary 'soft-assemblies': take some of the posts in this thread.

Theyve unconsciously swept under-the-rug the powerful - or should be powerful - fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.

And how? You need a more psychoanalytic understanding of how subjective minds function - and guess what? You can't understand that outside of a relational framework. Because all minds - except those who take these important facts about cognition into account and act appropriately - are 'dissociated" and "enframed" before they even know it!

It's ridiculous. Insane. And I know, for those reading me, a strong impression will probably emerge in their minds: "what an arrogant asshole"! And that might seem fair if you ignored the context: that I am just one guy, a guy who has happened to spend a great deal of his life studying the human mind, and is therefore "primed" to see things other people don't.

If you understand this situation you wont hold my claim to knowledge against me; just as I don't assume the right to believe that my itty-bits of knowledge can compare to the encylopedic range of climate scientists.

But this is what you get with psychic equivalence: people unconsciously apply their own minds - and how they work - in their relations with others. And what they expect, they find. So, for the people reading me, I'm just being led by my "attachment" to climate change, and not a logical appraisal of the available science and the ever-persuasive force of 97% of climate experts demanding a political response.

In a culture of narcissism - such as ours: a culture which has reified it's mind and mental processes, ignored the ferocity of unconscious emotional experience in framing perspective (for example, no doubt, someone will be "irked" by my saying this, will become framed to say that "youre doing the same", all the while ignoring my own personal history, and thus proficiency in thinking this way; neuroplasticity is also a useful idea, making clear that 'practice" really does improve mental performance) you get all sorts of arrogance; And of course, this is an arrogance aware of it's arrogance: its an opaque mind being directed by unconscious relational patterns: where meaning lies, the mind charges forth. And so there's all these details - mostly affecting republicans/conservatives - which prevent them from rationally interpreting the available data.

The other day I was watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. He had a piece called "how is this still a thing" - and that weeks clip was Ayn Rand: How Is She still a Thing? Ayns Rands philosophy was essentially the product of a narcissistic mind. Todays psychoanalysts would call her the prototypical "traumatizing narcissist"; an individual who recklessly denies your subjectity, and as Ayn Rand believed, will use you -- as an object, not a person just like her -- in any way she likes to increase her happiness.

Her proponents? Ted Cruz. Rand Paul. Paul Ryan. All conservatives. All of them empathically broken in very fundamental ways.

The funny thing is, the mind is plastic: what were seeing in people like this is a mind frozen in a pathological way of relating: and its largely a republican base. And, I hasten to emphasize, theres' nothing "fundamental" about being this way. They do not represent in any shape or form a different type of human personality, as conservatives would want to believe; it's just the consequence of a traditional - and abusive - way of bringing up your children. George Lakoff covers this, somewhat, in his book "moral politics". Attachment theorists and developmental psychologists in particular are aghast that these dyanmics are taken so seriously and defended so heartily by Christian conservatives. But this is it: one side is progressive, understands the nature of being human - our ignorance - and so is ever open to learning; while the other side firmly believes what it does. And the irony is, you have two very different moral personalities on the "right"; the nihilistic and narcissistic 'business' personality; and the parochial minded Christian. The former panders to the latter without much sharing - or feeling - the same moral emotions.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

And that to you is a sufficient explanation? 97%? Essentially all of them are that naive? Or cynical?

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Would you have known to reject what the majority of scientists are saying and have said if you hadn't heard about it on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the whole downstream Republican Media Echo Chamber?

Would you listen to the facts of the matter instead of trying to argue against almost insurmountable data and research merely because of your preconceived beliefs based on hearsay and ignorance?

What is the counter argument again? "We just don't know, we just don't know" ... talk about an Argument from Ignorance!

Have you ever bothered to ask what I do believe instead of telling me what I believe?

Careful with words like "gullible" they usually come back to bite the one that tosses them about, willy-nilly.

This pretty much sums it up....

www.newsmax.com... =542&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

The idea that there is significant man-made global warming is "a whole lot of baloney," Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman insisted on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday morning.

"The government only gives money to scientists who will present their hypothesis," said Coleman, a meteorologist who helped found The Weather Channel 32 years ago. "They don't have any choice; if you are going to get the money, you have to present their position. Those are the ones the government pays for. That doesn't make it right, that only means it's bought and paid for."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.Newsmax.com...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

a reply to: Astrocyte

It's really easy ...

One side has "we don't know; we just don't know!"

The other side has scientific research, not to mention, gigabytes of data from, you know, actual measurable and objective studies.

What does the other side have? Belief and for many, The Bible.

Let's see ... let's evaluate this ... math or Methuselah?

What to pick ... what to pick?

a reply to: Caver78

Thank you. But you will still be attacked with liberal talking points by people who think that TV personalities and former politicians know more than the guy who started the WEATHER CHANNEL.