Global Climate Change Science News

[piscator]

He's got his gun and the Gubment has more guns. So he's got
1 gun
2 life

Gubment has to employ trained gun folks to deal with all that.

Pity that most of them aren't as well trained as I am.

They don't have to be, they can work with others.

[Seth]

Even salmon?

Yup, even salmon. That they die after reproducing doesn't change the fact that they strive (mightily I might add) to survive and reproduce. The same is true of male Black Widow spiders and Praying Mantis'. Males get eaten after reproducing, but prior to that point in time they do the same things every living organism does to survive.

Run away and hide?

Or fight.

Both of which are exercises of the right to life and the right to self-defense. Male mantis' don't just sit there, they try to escape, and so do male spiders.

[Seth]

The biological fact of survival-related behaviour is an important underpinning to an understanding of all organisms, including humans, but it does not translate directly into "natural rights" in a social species with the ability to communicate and analyse abstract concepts, and to develop intricate social structures.

I didn't say it translates "directly," I said it's the basis of the concept of natural rights, as opposed to government-created rights.

[Seth]

And so, from Nature we can infer our Right to opportunistically rip the guts out of whoever it takes to feed the kids...

If you can, yes. That's an exercise of the Second Organic Law, which is the universal natural behavior to seek out, acquire, and make exclusive use of those resources necessary for survival, or in other words, the right to private property. Of course your attempt to invoke the right is subject to being defended against by another exercising his or her right to life, which is based in the First Organic Law, which is the universal natural behavior of protecting the continued existence of the organism, or in other words, the right to self-defense.

[Seth]

He's got his gun and the Gubment has more guns. So he's got
1 gun
2 life

Gubment has to employ trained gun folks to deal with all that.

Pity that most of them aren't as well trained as I am.

They don't have to be, they can work with others.

Or not.

[JimC]

The biological fact of survival-related behaviour is an important underpinning to an understanding of all organisms, including humans, but it does not translate directly into "natural rights" in a social species with the ability to communicate and analyse abstract concepts, and to develop intricate social structures.

I didn't say it translates "directly," I said it's the basis of the concept of natural rights, as opposed to government-created rights.

I know this argument, essentially that rights awarded by one government-of-the-day can be legislated away by the next one.

However, in most advanced countries, human rights are not a matter of government legislation, but embedded in either a constitution (such as your own) or deep within the law, such as Common Law in England & many other countries, or a combination of both. That makes such rights much less fragile, but deep down they are still socially constructed rules that a given polity has agreed to accept and enforce.

[piscator]

The biological fact of survival-related behaviour is an important underpinning to an understanding of all organisms, including humans, but it does not translate directly into "natural rights" in a social species with the ability to communicate and analyse abstract concepts, and to develop intricate social structures.

I didn't say it translates "directly," I said it's the basis of the concept of natural rights, as opposed to government-created rights.

I know this argument, essentially that rights awarded by one government-of-the-day can be legislated away by the next one.

However, in most advanced countries, human rights are not a matter of government legislation, but embedded in either a constitution (such as your own) or deep within the law, such as Common Law in England & many other countries, or a combination of both. That makes such rights much less fragile, but deep down they are still socially constructed rules that a given polity has agreed to accept and enforce.

That last word is the crux of the issue.

[mistermack]

It certainly is the crutch of the issue.

Seth's notion of rights is meaningless. He has a right to his property. The government has a right to take it as tax. He has a right to life. The government has a right to kill him, if he breaks some of their rules.
People have a right to freedom. The government can call you up for military service, if they feel like it. And tell you what to do twenty four hours a day. Or lock you in a tiny room for years, if you break their rules.

Basically, his rights are just the rights to TRY to get what you want.
I think we all knew that already.

As opposed to real rights, which other people and agencies are obliged to respect.

[Seth]

The biological fact of survival-related behaviour is an important underpinning to an understanding of all organisms, including humans, but it does not translate directly into "natural rights" in a social species with the ability to communicate and analyse abstract concepts, and to develop intricate social structures.

I didn't say it translates "directly," I said it's the basis of the concept of natural rights, as opposed to government-created rights.

I know this argument, essentially that rights awarded by one government-of-the-day can be legislated away by the next one.

However, in most advanced countries, human rights are not a matter of government legislation, but embedded in either a constitution (such as your own) or deep within the law, such as Common Law in England & many other countries, or a combination of both. That makes such rights much less fragile, but deep down they are still socially constructed rules that a given polity has agreed to accept and enforce.

Yes, but the issue is upon what are those agreements (which are codifications of understandings about human behavior and relationships) are based. Where they originate from.

The classic theist argument is that they originate with God, and being "God given" cannot therefore be alienated by any temporal authority. This is of course unsatisfactory to Atheists, as would be expected.

My thesis is that the common elements of the agreements we call "fundamental human rights," such as the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property and the right to procreation are pretty much common to all human cultures, sometimes to a greater or lesser degree, but common to all nonetheless. This is precisely why we see such concepts embedded in some sort of charter or constitution that protects some specific fundamental rights to the greatest degree possible given the penchant humans have for violating any and all laws or moral concepts. Constitutions or Charters such as the Magna Carta or the UN Declaration of Human Rights are not invulnerability shields against infringement or abuse of the individual, but they are the basis upon which the vast majority of the human race lives as a social animal.

I am probing the organic origins of the fundamental social agreements we see not just in human society, but in every living creature as the basis for understanding why some rights are universally fundamental to our nature as living creatures.

This is not about government or no government, leftism or rightism or anything else. It's about exploring the roots of human rights, and in doing so I have discovered an entirely non-theistic and scientifically-based argument that explains why and how our complex system of rights and social structures evolved.

I have been unsatisfied with the proposition so often heard that rights are merely an artifact of our intellectual complexity and therefore they are entirely subjective and without either scientific or philosophical foundation.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks to common ideals of human behavior such as "inherent dignity" and "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" as the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," it does not address what it is about human nature that makes freedom, justice and peace in the world aspects of human character and behavior worthy of respect. It is assumed a priori that aspects like "dignity," "freedom," "justice," are "inherent," but without an explanation of why or how these aspects came into being and why they appear to be universal.

My goal has been to look deeper than the abstract concepts upon which the UDHR, the US Constitution, the Magna Carta and virtually every other human society that has existed that we know anything about.

And I find that foundation in the instinctual, natural, evolved behaviors and needs of all living creatures, as I have explained.

It would be nice if you could get past this black-and-white notion you have that agreeing with me makes you a "Lolbertardian" or something. I'm not discussing the organization of particular societies at this point, I'm merely trying to find the common denominators that drive the "universal" respect for certain aspects of human behavior and interaction that does not rely upon a theistic argument.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

[JimC]

I agree that basic human rights should be universal, not subject to local political forces, and not based on religion.

However, this doesn't mean they have to emerge automatically from biology, except in so far as they must fit in with our biological nature, and not contradict it. I think that they can be derived from a secular version of the Golden Rule, which formalises the intuitive empathy we have with our fellow sentients; we know we don't want to be harmed, so neither should they.

[Seth]

I agree that basic human rights should be universal, not subject to local political forces, and not based on religion.

However, this doesn't mean they have to emerge automatically from biology, except in so far as they must fit in with our biological nature, and not contradict it. I think that they can be derived from a secular version of the Golden Rule, which formalises the intuitive empathy we have with our fellow sentients; we know we don't want to be harmed, so neither should they.

Do we have "intuitive empathy?" History seems to suggest we do not. If we did, then we wouldn't need "rights" or Constitutions at all. And why do we know we don't want to be harmed? Because of the First Organic Law.

[JimC]

I agree that basic human rights should be universal, not subject to local political forces, and not based on religion.

However, this doesn't mean they have to emerge automatically from biology, except in so far as they must fit in with our biological nature, and not contradict it. I think that they can be derived from a secular version of the Golden Rule, which formalises the intuitive empathy we have with our fellow sentients; we know we don't want to be harmed, so neither should they.

Do we have "intuitive empathy?" History seems to suggest we do not. If we did, then we wouldn't need "rights" or Constitutions at all. And why do we know we don't want to be harmed? Because of the First Organic Law.

We have it, it's just that there are motives and emotions that push us in the other direction. However, with a little rational thought, "do unto others as you would be done by" codifies the part of human nature that fosters co-operation within the tribe, and expands the tribe to bigger and bigger entities...

However, this process can go too far into collectivism - I have at least some overlap in agreement with you, that the tendency for government and collective philosophy to wittle away individual rights to personal liberty that do not infringe on others needs to be watched and checked...

[Animavore]

Back on topic from this rather absurd tangent... Why do denialists gotta lie?

For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has been underwriting a huge, successful campaign to lie about climate change. Like the tobacco industry before it, energy companies have created a body of pseudoscience, created by paid lackeys, and successfully co-opted the mainstream of the Republican Party to their “point of view.”

This week, that campaign took a serious body blow, as one of its leading pseudo-scientific voices was exposed as a liar and a fraud, having accepted millions of corporate dollars to pose as a climate-change skeptic.

To be clear, Climate Trutherism is a conspiracy theory. It’s not just that climate change isn’t real, or isn’t certain—it’s that the world’s leading climate scientists and climate organizations (who are all in agreement about it) are perpetrating what Senator James Inhofe calls The Greatest Hoax. This is all to, in Inhofe’s words, “dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business.”

Yet unlike 9/11 trutherism, and Obama-is-a-Muslim trutherism, the Climate Truther campaign has an air of respectability, a unanimous adherence among Republican presidential candidates. How is that possible?

The answer is money. Lots of money. Billions of dollars, in fact, spent to create an entire industry of scientists, publicists, think tanks, and legislative organizations.

Willie Soon, for example, should never have been given much credence in the first place. Like nearly all of the Climate Truthers’ scientists, he is not a climate expert. He’s not even an astrophysicist, as he is often presented. As The New York Times revealed, “He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.”...

cont... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... niers.html

The parallels with the ID crowd are staggerinng. Lying about qualifications. Claiming conspiracy from whole bodies of science. Creating "think-tanks". Creating a piss-poor list of scientists who don't agree (shades of the Discovery Institute) And on.. and on...

[Seth]

Back on topic from this rather absurd tangent... Why do denialists gotta lie?

Why do Warmists gotta lie?

[Seth]

Study: Earth’s Orbit Causes Global Warming Today And Climate Change 1.4 Billion Years Ago
11:58 AM 03/11/2015



Photo of Michael Bastasch
Michael Bastasch

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS

A new study out of Denmark found that fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, called Milankovitch cycles, have been causing periods of dramatic, short-term global warming for at least 1.4 billion years.

Fluctuations in Earth’s orbit are even behind the long-term warming of today’s climate, conclude researchers.

While they acknowledged that greenhouse gases are the immediate dominating force changing Earth’s climate today, they noted that on a larger scale the way our planet revolves around the sun is the ultimate control knob over the climate.

“This study helps us understand how past climate changes have affected Earth geologically and biologically,” Donald Canfield, the study’s main author and a professor at Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark, said in a statement.

Canfield and his colleagues form the University of Southern Denmark and the China National Petroleum Corporation examined 1.4 billion-year-old marine sediment from northern China. What they found was evidence of “repeated climate fluctuations, reflecting apparent changes in wind patterns and ocean circulation that indicates orbital forcing of climate change.” But more importantly, the same orbital forcing that caused the climate to change 1.4 billion years ago is the underlying force behind global warming today, according to Canfield.

“Earth’s climate history is complex. With this research we can show that cycles like the Milankovich [sic] cycles were at play 1.4 billion years ago – a period, we know only very little about,” said Canfield. “This research will also help us understand how Milankovitch cyclicity ultimately controls climate change on Earth.”

Milankovitch cycles occur every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years. In the last one million years, these cycles have caused an ice age to occur every 100,000 years or so. According to Canfield, the Earth is currently in a period of warming that has lasted for about 11,000 years.

While this study does not call into question the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for rapid warming in the past century, it does shine a light on the Earth’s long climate history. In particular, the role Earth’s position relative to the sun plays in warming and cooling the planet.

Most scientists, however, say the sun currently plays little to no role in the 0.85 degrees Celsius of global warming that has occurred since the mid-1800s — that warming has been blamed largely on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use.

“While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Earth has been gradually warming since the end of the last ice age about 11,000 or 12,000 years ago — sea levels have been rising since then as well. But within this gradual warming trend, the climate has shown lots of instability.

A recent study from Aarhus University found that the climate has varied over long time periods since the end of the last ice age. The climate has been generally cooler in the last 4,000 years, according to researchers, ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.

But Aarhus University researchers also found that solar activity — the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth — has a big impact on the climate during cool periods, like the one the planet has been going through for the last four millennia.

“We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear,” Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz of Aarhus University said in a statement.

“Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity,” Seidenkrantz said. “The extent of the Sun’s influence over time is thus not constant, but we can now conclude that the climate system is more receptive to the impact of the Sun during cold periods – at least in the North Atlantic region.”