If there is a crisis situation somewhere on Earth people can leave or be evacuated. When it comes to evacuating the Earth - Planet A - you would need a Planet B? There is no Planet B - we must also think about other sentient beings whose welfare we must consider as Buddhists.
We have to do everything we can right now to improve the prospects of those yet to be born - that is Buddhism 101. The Buddha encouraged us to protect sentient beings like a mother protects with her life, her child, her only child! The Buddha taught us to have love and compassion for those born and, to be born, near or far, visible or invisible.
The mass of people have not yet digested the information given and ignorance is their close friend, this mind would hope for positive reflection, but racism on a scale never seen before should be avoided, the threat of closed borders probably will increase worlwide. Stock market over investment. In future tech may bring major crashes of a systematic level, these are just a few of the negative probabilities if ignorance prevails?
Birth control needs to be pursued, food crops for individual nations increased, sea and sun defences need massive investment and manpower of a scale not seen before., rejigions need reform , not sure any of this is possible?
climate-warming trends over the past century for instance.
My first guess is that means globalize warming since 1900. Maybe 1917?
That would be a continuation of the warming that had been going on since about 1800.
This gets strange because the IPCC reports their internal consensus about warming since 1950. That date partly because before then the change in CO2 was too small for attribution studies.
So if they are saying there is a consensus about the warming around 1900, a consensus at a extremely likely confidence level, then I wonder where they get that idea from. I think they misrepresented the consensus.
( Climate denier alert anyone?)
extremely likely due to human activities.
They didnāt say just CO2 or refer just greenhouse gasses. Which is correct.
But this gets into a ambiguity of such phrases in English. Do you read that to mean
entirely due to, mainly due to, or partly due to in some amount not stated?
I take it as the latter - partly due to.
I say itās partly due to human drivers and partly due to natural drives with a wide divergence of opinions on the mix. Especially since we are going back to the warming in 1900. And I say so with the thought that I just passed over a line because I didnāt stick to the script.
This illustrates only one of the four reasons why I tend to avoid talk about consensus.
Instead it makes more sense IMO for the compassionate to ask about whether what we believe and know is good enough for public policy.
Dear Feynman, the first quotation - in your comment directly above - is from a statement that has been made on a NASA website. If you want to argue with NASA about their climate science that is fine?
You might be able to get a position in their administration given the changes in store for the space agency - compliments of President Trump? You can then set the record straight - it could be a good career move?
I know it was a NASA website. That was one sentence in one of many, public information websites NASA host. It seems odd to me that you label that climate science. More like their reporting on climate science Iād say.
It happens that every so often someone in Joe Q Public finds an error. In my assessment its extremely likely that one sentence was due to human error.
But I only want to argue with them if they pay a consultants fee.
Come on! I think they need to run their data, assessments and conclusions by you before they release anything in the public domain - just in case theyāve missed something. Thereās a big shake-up on the way - I will write you a reference!
Climate denier alert anyone?)
