Jump to content
The Corroboree
gtarman

Every one stop what you're doing and watch this!!

Recommended Posts

I'm putting this in News & Notices because it contained recent information that was certainly news to me, and is of the utmost importance. Please watch this and share it in any way you can with whoever you can, post it on your Facebook or Twitter if you have those. Believe me, this is worth watching from start to end and giving it your full attention.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's some scary shit right there .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often people can become overwhelmed by such stark realities, unsure what direct action they need to take to actively reduce their impact on climate change.

There are a number of ways this can be done.

For example; 1/3 of waste from the average household is food!

Imagine how much more beneficial if much of that was composted and given back to the land so we can create better "Earth".

I could go on.. but I'm a little short on time (well I am short, but rarely on time).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny tiny thin layer of gasses and chemicals = "Ozone Layer" - which get shredded every time a space rocket goes into space or returns. They want to blame us but we are not the only reason! Once I figure out how to upload you tube, I will show good examples.

They want to blame methane and Ice - well what about all the millions of acres cleared for the hard hoofed methane producing cattle we all so love to eat? Stop the mass production of beef/red meat and plant more trees. Trap the methane and use it for cooking instead of coal seam gas which could become coal seam fire with the next big earthquake. Too hard to stabilize methane? Well find a way, indonesian's have been cooking from cows crap(methane) for hundreds of years..

Take back your Motherland! Be natural beings again.

Petition your government for a piece of your motherland so you can stop contributing to the problems.

We are not helpless and this is not hopeless.

Don't get scared, get angry!




			
				


	Edited  by woodwoman
	
	

			
		
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is precisely the shit I don't understand. Why should we not talk about possible scenarios, what happens if this is really getting beyond something we have any hope of controlling? We're all so busy trying to prove the smallest case scenario, the least amount of change likely, that we seem to have lost the possibility that climate scientists, so damned conservative in their estimations, may be so seriously underestimating the problems we have that the dangerous alternatives have suddenly become a grim probability.

I tried to talk about this with friends when I was at Greenpeace years ago, and there were simply tight lips. Do not mention the scary shit. If we have any remote chance of getting governments to act, do not say anything scary otherwise your name will be shit for decades. Keep it reasonable, keep it calm. We're not even going to discuss amongst ourselves the grimmer stuff, because we know from experience we will be laughed out of existence.

I say this now because someone else brought it up. I've been trained well. I'll probably never mention this again, and may well delete this post shortly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ whitewind. I agree that telling people the grim reality is not the way to frame the problem for most people. This video is intended to convey that information to the people who are likely to do something about it, to the people who it will galvanize and light a fire under their arses. I'm not suggesting we make doom and gloom our PR strategy, that hasn't worked and it's been tried already. But it's no use trying to pretend like these facts don't exist and that they're not a part of reality now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way, the truth is absolutely globally terrifying to say the least!

OK. So now the problem is how do we deliver this package of things that will make them feel pure blind panic as well as guilt and regret for pretty much everything they've ever done in their lives and a very strange unsettled feeling of detachment from a world they no longer know or understand or feel safe in..

hmm.. I suppose there is a bit to be afraid of.

People tend to put up a mental blocks sub-consciously to prevent a mental/physical panic overload with adrenalin pumping and no where to run.

A bit like an abattior animal one would expect! Much like many workplace situations in the cities!

Most people are aware of the fight or flight respose to fear, but there is a third; apathy (Apathy is killing the world but who cares??!)

That becomes their emotional range/body. Fear, apathy, and the hope of getting sex soaked love!

So there lies the stand-off.. How to get through?!?

Fear is only an emotion.

But to acheive awareness of this package of long term hell that awaits/exists(!) we need to side step that emotion so we can appeal to the heart.

Unfortunately this only seems possible in small amounts at a time.

Possibly due to the lack of love felt/received throughout their lives creating a limited capacity for both love and truth..

This does leave many people feeling like clappers in a bell. (including me!)

trying to drip feed the urgency of steering our planet away from hell, whilst being loving and light about it . :slap:

Sharing plants as gifts instead of some p.o.c object places value back on plants as our friends!

Often when a loved one is given a plant they begin to appreciate the beauty of nature..

Edit: ..and remember, regardless of their physical age they are but children in the sense of Emotional-Intelligence.

Despite what they tell you!

PS

If you are reading this.. you are the hope of ALL children of the future AND every form of life we were left custodianship over!

No pressure..!

Edited by MikeyMagic
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theory. Didn't prove a thing to me.

Ted has a reputation for promoting one sided views that trend the status quo and censoring the voices of those who speak in any manner deemed against the status quo.

Edited by AnthromorphicGerbil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why present the 2300 "forecast"? that's so far off to be virtually meaningless.

here's an alarming scenario: by the year 2300 every single human being currently on the face of the planet will be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why present the 2300 "forecast"? that's so far off to be virtually meaningless.

here's an alarming scenario: by the year 2300 every single human being currently on the face of the planet will be dead.

That's a bit like saying "Fuck the Future, I'll do whatever I want and I don't give a shit about the consequences to other people".

Very anti-social.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it's not, presenting a hypothetical situation which may or may not happen 300 years into the future is, as they say, "alarmism". you're not going to sway anyone by doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presenting likely possibilities and probabilities allows people to make decisions.

Telling a child that walking across a busy road without looking is dangerous is not "alarmism". Just because she wants those lollies "right now" is irrelevant.

It's called "giving a shit" and "education".

It's not my fault if a child becomes so scared of crossing the road she never leaves the house again.

Which in itself would be a rather extreme response to something that could be easily remedied by stopping for a moment, looking at what might happen, and making a decision to move only when it is safe to do so.

So being scared of something that might happen in 300 years time is rather an over-reaction, I'd say.

Edited by whitewind
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you tell a 3yo child not to eat lollies because when they're 70 they might run the possibility of getting diabetes will they not eat them?

that's a more appropriate analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not. It's a timescale thing. The effects of climate change are happening now, they are already impacting the planet's economy and killing people.

If you want a better analogy, it's like a parent crossing the road without looking, dragging the child with it, so the parent can get it's lollies.

Someone telling that parent that it's endangering the child's life is, in your opinion, "alarmism".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, it appears that you just don't want to take responsibility for your own actions. Correct me if I am wrong.

You appear to just want to continue on blindly without worrying about the impact it will have on future generations.

I think I understand. It's how our society functions, a lack of community spirit, every person for themselves, our lollies "right now".

No thought or ability to plan ahead effectively. Controlling all resources and alternative ideas so we can maximise our profits "now".

The fact that you've been infected by those memes is not your fault.

But I think we should try to have some care for other people, even if they haven't been born yet.

It's the way to build a better society.

EDITED to reduce the accusatory tone.

Edited by whitewind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bot6, you really need to start looking at the science here. The term "alarmism" in this "debate" was coined by the fossil fuel lobby's think tanks and their ilk trying to cast doubt on the strong scientific concensus of man-made climate change, specifically because that term is very engaging and resonant to the sort of people who want to pretend like there's nothing wrong. If you go to any global warming denial blog or news article you're almost guaranteed to see the term "alarmist". If you go to any credible or scientific sources of information, you will find out that those deniers are full of shit. And not just in their opinions. They are flat out wrong in scientific terms and the scientific evidence supports this.

These scientists are not in the business of exaggerating, or "alarming" people...science doesn't work that way. It's about hard evidence and data, and strong, falsifiable, peer-reviewed conclusions. If the scientific conclusions happen to be alarming, that's because they are.

In the words of the venture capitalist and engineer Eugene Kleiner, "There is a time when panic is the appropriate response."

The threat of global warming is not anywhere near analogous to your "I might get diabetes when I'm 70" example. That is outright ridiculous. We don't need analogies. We need to look at what is ACTUALLY happening and what the ACTUAL consequences will be. But like many on your side of this "debate" (it's not actually a debate), you don't seem willing to look at facts.

And the idea that everyone "just needs to relax and stop taking this so seriously" or to wait until there's more evidence is basically offensive to the intelligence of the public and to the future of our civilazation and species as a whole.

You don't need to be able to count cards to see that a >90% certain risk to the future of our species and civilization is a risk worth taking immediate action on. It's not rocket surgery, and frankly anybody who says, "Nah let's wait, I want to see that other <10% before we do anything." is not the kind of person you should be listening to. You don't take >90% risks with planetary life-support systems. You just don't.

PS. also, the prediction about the year 2300 you refer to really isn't outlandish. It has happened before actually, it was called the Permian Mass Exctinction. If you want to find out more about it watch a BBC documentary online called, "The Day The Earth Nearly Died". Essentially once the planet gets warmed around about 5 degrees or so it creates a positive feedback loop by releasing huge reserves of previously frozen methane into the atmosphere that causes a further 5 degrees or so of warming. When this happened in the Permian Mass Extinction, it killed 98% of life on Earth. And ironically, taking the view that it's only one possibility at this stage and that we therefore shouldn't worry about it, is exactly the kind of attitude that is likely to make something like this actually happen. The reason it's only a possibility right now is that we still have a chance to change. But if we just keep burying our heads in the sand it becomes more and more likely.

Edited by gtarman
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to watch this. This is the senior earth scientist for NASA's Langley Research Centre talking about public climate change literacy, and his "3 Laws of Climate Change" - Accuracy, Accuracy, and Accuracy.

Edited by gtarman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theory. Didn't prove a thing to me.

Ted has a reputation for promoting one sided views that trend the status quo and censoring the voices of those who speak in any manner deemed against the status quo.

Are you actually serious? You are actually openly saying that the overwhelming scientific concensus on anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy? The reason this "debate" seems one-sided, is because it IS one-sided - it's not a debate. What would be unfair and one-sided is if we gave equal say (50%) to scientific skeptics when 98% of scientific evidence contradicts them. Science is about evidence, not opinion, and people often make that mistake...the media make this mistake all the time, which is one reason why public opinion is so skewed in opposition to scientific evidence.

The video in the OP isn't designed to prove anything to you. He's not a scientist, he's just conveying scientific findings in a journalistic capacity. If you really want proof go out and look at the scientific information yourself. Get educated about how science works, read the reports of the IPCC. If you're not willing to listen to science then you can't complain that you don't have proof.

And you wouldn't tell heart surgeons how to do heart surgery, so what makes you feel qualified to say that climate scientists don't know climate science? Because you "read it on the internet"? If you're not going to accept science, then you may as well get off the internet, stop using your computer, your iphone, your car, electricity in general, and go live in a cave somewhere. Science isn't something you can cherry-pick the most convenient beliefs from to suit yourself, that's not how it works. Science isn't about beliefs or opinions.

Whatever the reason you think it's a conspiracy, I can virtually guarantee you there is easily accessible information out there to disprove and discredit you. Most people in your position just don't want to see it.

Edited by gtarman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a nice presentation, but a few more references to the literature used in compiling the figures would be useful. Does TedX require the speakers to submit a paper in order to get a podium?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it would have been nice if he added references to the papers in question so you didn't have to track them down manually. But he's hardly alone that regard. Even most major news outlets don't specifically reference the papers they write about these days, only saying "a team of scientists say..." or "a recent study has found..."

It would be a positive step forward for science reporting and science literacy in general if that was more widely adopted as standard practice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When evidence that people want to see is presented it is called 'fact.' When evidence that people just can't bear to look at is presented it is called 'conspiracy theory'.....

10 mins later..

Conspiracy theory. Didn't prove a thing to me.

:scratchhead:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it would have been nice if he added references to the papers in question so you didn't have to track them down manually. But he's hardly alone that regard. Even most major news outlets don't specifically reference the papers they write about these days, only saying "a team of scientists say..." or "a recent study has found..."

It would be a positive step forward for science reporting and science literacy in general if that was more widely adopted as standard practice.

Especially when presenting the case for anthropological climate change. Given that this is such a potentially important issue for the planet, I think presentations such as this should be more rigourous in proving their case. I think most people can understand that even a 2 degree change in average temperature in the next few decades will have a significant impact on the Earth's biosphere - the real challenge is demonstrating with scientific evidence that this will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was just a 15 min window..........................short sharp shock.....................I'm a little perplexed..................I didn't hear anything new...............everything said...................has come up in research news over the years......................after all the fact and figures...................and if every one on the planet was well informed..........and a good % are......more or less...................do you really feel it would make a sod of difference..................there is this momentum with humanity.................its akin to a stampede.....................and it all gets really messy................with flavours of consumerism..corporatism ...........and prestige and dominance......personal power.............hierarchy..............

there's this elegant algorithm, for determining the flight path of a bird or insect in a flock.....................if I remember correctly it comes down to 3 factors ..........1 is distant from neighbour...2 is direction of neighbours path....3 fly away from things that bite :)

somehow that's our stampede....................panicking won't help ................sadly there are soo many easy solutions...................there are so many easy things we could do...............apart from not making more carbon (which is only one of the bad boys...so many others).........

if as, individuals we do the right thing..............its just a piss in the ocean.........there's alot of us pissing................but sadly it won't help..........we are on the outside of the stampede................most people don't live long enough to feel its their problem...........and they are exhausted just managing family career etc..................I'm perplexed ...I just can't see a solution........because it would mean a fundamental change in our nature...............our genetic program..............somehow we would have to be something we are not.....................

Edited by Dreamwalker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially when presenting the case for anthropological climate change. Given that this is such a potentially important issue for the planet, I think presentations such as this should be more rigourous in proving their case. I think most people can understand that even a 2 degree change in average temperature in the next few decades will have a significant impact on the Earth's biosphere - the real challenge is demonstrating with scientific evidence that this will occur.

Actually, a growing body of research is suggesting it's not actually a matter of conveying the science more accurately. The "science debate" is more often than not just a proxy for a deeper, ideological divide...the social intuitionist model of moral psychology is one of the leading explanations for this - that people don't neutrally examine the evidence and then take an appropriate stance on a topic. Essentially human minds work in the reverse fashion - we take a stance based on psychological reasons and personality traits, and our view of what "tribes" or groups we belong to, and then we hang our hats on whatever explanations are necessary and we generally stick by them no matter what. Two good books that convey these ideas are. "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathon Haidt, and "The Republican Brain" by Chris Mooney.

There's also a great interview with a researcher from UWA here on ABC's science show, and there is a great list of research papers about influencing public opinion on climate change here. That website also has some good guides and resources for those trying to convey climate change information.

It does of course matter to get the science right, but what's being found is that often conveying the science doesn't do the trick, no matter how well you do at it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially human minds work in the reverse fashion - we take a stance based on psychological reasons and personality traits, and our view of what "tribes" or groups we belong to, and then we hang our hats on whatever explanations are necessary and we generally stick by them no matter what.

well said - I catch myself doing exactly this on forums such as this.

however I still have some faith that sufficiently articulate and concise presentation of scientific facts will eventually motivate our civilization to take appropriate action on climate change. as william blake said:

Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed.

edit: but maybe it is not enough for people to see the reality of climate change via scientific evidence, when we don't seem willing to sacrifice our own standard of living for the future of our planet. the real problem could be that we lack empathy for the future generations that will inhabit this planet.

Edited by ∂an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×