Post No. 2,750 - The climate crisis is real, an existential threat, and human caused

I want to make a clear declarative statement so my position is clear:

The climate crisis is real, an existential threat, and human-caused

I get annoyed when views that climate change is caused by other effects are claimed, as: 

(1) that is wrong; 

(2) even if that were to be true - which it is NOT - we would still need to make changes to how we live anyway (doubly so, if the ice age sometimes claimed to be coming does eventuate); and 

(3) we are consuming too many resources as it is, so the wealthier/flashier/more consuming lifestyles on the planet (including in my nation, the so-called “Australia”) have to change - quite apart from the climate crisis - so that we, the human species, have a sustainable future. 

I have criticised science: it has problems, including the “publish or perish” rubbish and all the abuses of ethics that that leads to (including not publishing null replications, or twisting alleged replications of studies into something else), but, above all else, it has the fatal flaw of emotional reactions to new outcomes/topics/anything labelled as pseudo-science - and those emotional flaws also allow the bigotries it shows against its own and in making interpretations. 

Yes, a lot of the pseudo-science is rubbish, but there is some good in there - even Carl Sagan considered early childhood of children of previous lives worth investigating. On that, the only link I could find from a quick search is as follows, but I originally read that in one of Sagan’s books: 

• “Childhood past-life memories: 50 years of evidence”   https://europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/news/childhood-past-life-memories-50-years-of-evidence/   “According to the famous astrophysicist Carl Sagan, there were three claims in the field of parapsychology that deserve serious study. One of them was the reporting of past-life memories by young children, which turn out to be accurate, and which can only be explained through reincarnation.”   site:   European Academy on Religion and Society   https://europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/   which   “aims to foster collaboration between Faculties and Departments of Theology and/or Religious Studies, and to make their knowledge visible to society”  
  

I want you, Dear Reader, to take note of what I wrote above: 

“I originally read that in one of Sagan’s books”  

I am unconventional in many of my opinions and what I hold to be true, but that is, wherever possible, based on my experience and research - such as: 

• the work of Victor Zammit; 

• Dean I Radin’s “The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena” (Harper One (2010), first pub. Harper Collins (2009), ISBN 978 0062029096, Amazon);

• Lynne  McTaggart’s  work, such as “The Power of Eight” (Atria Books, Reprint edition, 26th September 2017, ISBN 9781501115561, Amazon); and 

• the sort of work I wrote about in “Post No. 2,218 - A Commentary on "Superhuman: The Invisible Made Visible" and "A Tear in the Sky" (700 words 3 - 5 min. read)”   https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2022/05/post-no-2218-commentary-on-superhuman.html   

But on top of that, I bother to read/view work by science communicators and debunkers. 

I don’t always agree with what they are communicating (and some have occasionally gone of the rails, in my opinion), but I am not afraid of listening to and considering their messages - until they do go off the rails and become dangerous (which I have posted links to elsewhere - one in particular was way off track with autism, and earlier was also off trach with gender identity).

I want to urge you, Dear Reader, not to be afraid of science and scientists - yes, I consider some of them wrong, but I also consider the vast majority of what they do to be correct, good, and valuable to people and this planet. 

And where there are problems, I can try to change them, but only if I know what the problems are - and I won’t know that if I do not know their views. 

Mind you, I will equally do the same with science ... “sceptics”, but fewer of them are, in my opinion, correct or valid enough to give heed to, than on the other side. 

Engaging with science and scientists is not the same as listening to/watching right wing anti-inclusion anti-decency extremists - except for the few who render themselves unfit to be counted as scientific by promoting eugenics, transgenocide, etc ... and I am always mindful of those (probably relatively few) doctors and scientists (and engineers) who cooperated with the evil that held power in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. 

Do not be an intellectual coward: genuinely consider first, noting that having the courage to genuinely consider science may still lead to you rejecting something from officialdom ... 

And deal constructively with emotional issues that doing so raises. Do not be as emotionally dishonest, crippled and incompetent as some scientists are.

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram. 

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/