"Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change?"

The either-or construction of your question creates a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose to focus on climate change OR human behavior--we can do both! Indeed, even if NSF and other grant funding institutions switched their priorities entirely today, that's not going turn a biochemist into a psychologist, sociologist, or behavioral economist. Moreover, one might characterize the climate-related problems we are experiencing as simply manifestations of overconsumption--human behavior. Perhaps a better way to phrase this question is: should research funding priorities change to focus more on understanding, predicting, and ultimately changing human behavior? That's a question I could answer with a wholehearted "yes"!

It's a bold question! Congratulations!

I believe there is some euphoria about the environmental issue. But at the same time we should be concerned to reduce damage to the environment. And we should avoid using these environmental concerns for political purposes.

Nature can take care of its self up to a point - this is evident from the Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium. But then the damage to our environment has been done which has far reaching consequences. Another fact is that the problem is chronic & it doesn't seem to decelerate ant any point of time.

On the other hand,as more of the developing & under developed countries communities raise their standard of living & become learned, the problem of quixotic behavior would slowly get steadily stream lined & only then humanity, the world over can heave a sigh of relief.

Raveendra very interesting question. Yes we have been talking about climate change for quite some time. Yes, nature heals it self. Climate change is not a very new phenomena for earth, there have been phases and pulses of hot and glaciation. I guess we should certainly study human dimension with a view to design and devise mechanism on how to cope with this change. Because if we dont then our fate can be similar to dinosours who ruled this land for a long time and vanished.

"Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change?"

The either-or construction of your question creates a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose to focus on climate change OR human behavior--we can do both! Indeed, even if NSF and other grant funding institutions switched their priorities entirely today, that's not going turn a biochemist into a psychologist, sociologist, or behavioral economist. Moreover, one might characterize the climate-related problems we are experiencing as simply manifestations of overconsumption--human behavior. Perhaps a better way to phrase this question is: should research funding priorities change to focus more on understanding, predicting, and ultimately changing human behavior? That's a question I could answer with a wholehearted "yes"!

I totally agree with what Jeremy says above. It is also important to remember that we cannot simply remove humans from the equation. If we could remove humans then you are probably correct, nature would balance itself out. But we are here and whilst we may evolve out we are a very big problem to the ecological system that created us - or are we? These are interesting questions. Is what is really at stake from climate change our current living standards and societies? Is nature truly at risk? Is it not a good thing that our current way of living is endangered? I fear that some reading this may see me as a denying climate change. I am not and I am certain that this is due to human activities. I just hope that we run out of polluting resources sooner rather than later and give other species a chance!

Oops! I would be very much about the entailment a of the question. Certainly this is not the case of Raavendra, but all negationist arguments about greenhouse effect, global warming and the like are prone to bracket human beings' importance.

Nature, for sure, is much wiser than we are, ourselves. And yet, once we are here, we cannot discount the role of human beings.

One of the most serious concerns about environmental negationists is that they discharge the political and corporate responsibility.

It is "obvious that nature can take care of itself" only in the world of ideas, archetypes. Nature means a self-sufficient order by definition. However, we do not live in a world of archetypes or definitions, but in a world in which the natural order is constantly subverted by human disorder. Witness the gradual disappearance of the Amazon rain-forest due to the depredations of industry. While we pause to reflect on the human condition which produces such chaos, the depredations will inflict further damage. No, it is more urgent to enact and enforce laws against human destruction of nature, and to sit down to sort out hypothetical psychological causes only afterwards.

We need to keep our priorities straight. Otherwise we risk putting the cart before the horse and losing the horse to human carelessness.

@ Nelson, you are correct, we need strong legislation NOW! But, we also need to understand why we are where we are and to take steps against this keeping on happening. The problem with legislation is that within a democracy it has to be a majority decision and until a majority of people see themselves as suffering from climate change, etc., we won't support legislation. I have very little hope for humanity.

Focus on human dimensions is need of hour; however, we must also see the various facets where the human activities can pay role to modify the situations such as climate change; behavioral aspects and being human.

These all will ultimately facilitate for better world.

Dear Paul, wold you say that you have little hope for humanity - as such? Or else that you have little hope for what can politically be done in order to overcome the challenges we face currently?

Furthermore, It goes without saying that nature can survive without us. That is even a trivial statement. The real issue is: are the problems, troubles, hurdles, challenges and the like irreversible at the point they have reached?

"Is it time we forget climate change and focus on the 'human dimension'?"

I would say no, this is more of a philosophical question, whenever we deal with the climate change it ultimately focuses on the human dimensions.

Behavioral aspect of human life is one of the important aspect of climate change. Nevertheless, luckily there are behavioral scientists, anthropologist, and sociologists working on it. I am in favor of ‘science’ aspect of climate change and it is one of the most important aspect of the various climate change processes like CC adaptation, CC mitigation, and various others that are directly linked to humans.

“Is it not obvious that nature can take care of itself, if only left alone?”

Yes, nature would take care of itself. The concern is “if only left alone”. We simply cannot take out the human dimension from nature. In addition, by saying only left alone, I reckon that you are supposing a condition where there is very little or no human interference on natural systems. This is not going to happen at any point of time I suppose. Change is bound to happen, that's what the history of the planet tells. We can only work on to reduce the highly accelerated rate of the change i.e. GHG emissions from various sectors.

There are many, many people (including you) who are thinking and working together for a better world. So we can expect and hope a better tomorrow.

The science tells us that we have, over the past 200 years or so, entered into an unsustainable development trajectory. The science is also increasingly more clear about the causes and origins of this, and about what needs to be done to restore the balance between people and planet. We need a long term vision of a sustainable world in which, by mid century, 9 billion people can live thriving, peaceful and healthy lives and livelihoods, while safeguarding the Earth’s life support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends (a slight adaptation of the Brundtland definition).

Yes. Carbon dioxide is an effect, not a cause. The most important global problem right now is not theoretical: the hunger affecting 1 billion people.

Carlos, I feel the chafes may be irreversible and that we, as a species, only seem to change at the last minute. We focus on short-term goals and consequences. Unless we can change this I have little hope for humanity.

Glenn you are correct to talk about other issues other than climate change. These are all obviously all connected and include general over consumption. Perhaps the biggest threat is over-population and continued population growth. There are not enough resources to run this consumer society they way we do. We also produce way too much waste od all kinds. But, are we going to stop thinking we have the right to have as many children as we wish any time soon? I do not think so.

I fully agree with Raveendra, the problem is not the climate change, which by the way is questionable itself, but we, the egoists human beings who do not care about other kind of living beings in Earth. Look at the next movie trailer and then come back...

http://www.midwayjourney.com/film-trailer/

Huub:

Your description of the problem is quite right. How do we connect it to the broader question and come up with a solution? The sustainable vision is quite ok, but how do we get there? Please specify.

Regards

Huub:

Your description of the problem is quite right. How do we connect it to the broader question and come up with a solution? The sustainable vision is quite ok, but how do we get there? Please specify.

Regards

Thank you for this Demetris, this is a very evocative trailer. Human beings are the top end of a food chain and we are the most (so-called) intelligent creatures on the planet. This gives us the strength to do as we will and not to fall prey to any predators. However, we are falling prey to ourselves. We have become predators of ourselves and all else. This is why I have no confidence in humans or their survival. We do not have the right to cause the pollution and death as shown in the movie. We do not deserve to survive. We breed, pollute as we wish with no regard for anything but our egos. We advertise and promote products simply because these will make a profit for somebody with no regard for the production, transportation or disposal of the waste. If we cannot act responsible with these activities how can we solve the larger problems that effect our environment?

Raveendra, time and time again humans only react to situations that are in our faces. We drive cars very dangerously and only slow down or brake at the last moment. To ask humans to delay their gratification will only be successful when we have destroyed the planet to the extent that we have to act.

Dear Paul, We do, indeed. As a species we change at the last minute - if at all. My question then is: are we as a species to be blamed, or is our political system (you know, decision-making, etc.) what is to be judged?

In spite of the slow pace of political (f.i. corporate) decision-making, the numerous local actions by a number of communities, the huge scientific and academic concern (f.i., the production of papers, etc. that help increase our consciousness and commitment) make me rather optimistic.

In fact, honestly, the very fact of your raisnig the question: I find that highly valuable.

Dear Carlos, I guess it may come down to personality types (whatever those are exactly). Steven Cotgrove, back in the 80s put forward an attitude dimension of Catastrophe to Cornucopia. Individuals will fall along the linear dimension from seeing technology at causing catastrophes to seeing technology as providing an endless supply of innovations and solutions to any problems technology causes. Therefore, I do not see what you see as encouraging but rather as too little too late. I think that raising the question is a distraction rather than an activity that will change anything.

Glenn, I have read much that claims that 1 billion people are starving (mainly in Africa) because we in the developed countries 'use' there food and resource allocation and their share of the earth's waste absorbing capacity. WE consume too much and resources are finite. Thus, one billion go without. What do you think?

Identifying why people make decisions is the key to successful sales. Whether that be climate change, cars, vegetables, etc. knowing your client is critical.

The primary factor that drives my clients to be resource efficient (energy, water, etc.) is money. Many start out wanting to be leaders in sustainability, but by the end of the design process; the costs of what they want to do mount, and tough decisions ensue.

9 times out of 10, efficiency is sacrificed for the core mission of the building because the financial value of the core mission exceeds the cost of resources.

Therefore, if the cost of resources were higher, people would prioritize their efficient use higher. There are consequences to these high resource costs beyond reduced carbon emissions, but we'll leave that for another day.

I grow a lot of my own vegetables not to save transportation and pesticide related pollution bringing the vegetables to market. I grow them because they taste better, I know they are chemically/biologically safe, it saves me money, and I enjoy gardening. Environmental benefits are a secondary impact that I like, but if it was break even I would garden anyway. I added a rain barrel to collect rain water for my garden because I want chlorine free water for my plants. Where I live, water is plentiful and very cheap $4.1/kgal ($1.1/m3) so the driver is my health and controlling some of the chemicals in my food supply.

Building resilience is becoming the driver for a lot of my clients these days because they are worried about utility outages from disasters and storms effecting their ability to deliver services and consequentially impact their revenue. By reducing the resource demand of buildings resilience is increased. The fact that it helps the environment is a secondary consideration.

Everyone who cares about climate changes needs to find solutions that not only support climate change but support other perceived higher priorities as well.

Jeremy:

Apologies for my late reply!

Please correct me. When we do both, climate change and human behavior, doesn’t the ambiguity/dichotomy still persist? Isn’t that a way to perpetuate the ‘human beings don’t cause climate change’ belief? IMHO, climate change is just a symptom, only a messenger; We need to address the root, human behavior, not shoot the messenger.

I completely agree with your rephrasing the question to focus more on human behavior, but I still believe that keeping the option of climate change open takes away the focus on human nature and keeps the myth of climate change alive.

Regards

Nelson:

Apologies for my late reply.

At first glance, I completely disagreed with your reply. When I re-read your response, I realized that the term ’Climate change’ is loaded with multiple meanings. According to me, Climate change meant ‘the amount of attention and resources which were being wrongly focused on natural phenomena to determine if human impact had any influence’. According to you, climate change meant ‘the efforts and legislation urgently needed against human destruction”.

That was quite a near miss situation! I realized that I could have disagreed with you and labelled you along with those who believe that human beings ‘don’t cause climate change’. I should have used the word climate change 'studies' to be more specific while you meant climate change 'legislation'.

Now coming to the main part, once I knew that both of us are on the same side, there should be absolutely no let up on the legislation side as you espoused, that goes without saying.

But don’t you think that without first making it clear that human beings ARE the reason for abnormal climate patterns, such legislation will be difficult to pass?(Please refer to Paul's reply to your post) The arguments from climate change legislation proponents will be equally balanced by those who stand to benefit from abuse of the environment? Especially developing countries who also want a piece of the cake thus rendering all legislation toothless?

So when we go for strong legislation without clearing up the issue of what causes climate change, aren't we in the danger of putting the cart before the horse?

Regards

Alexandre:

Thank you for the compliment.

Agree with you on your "we should be concerned to reduce damage to the environment. And we should avoid using these environmental concerns for political purposes."

Having said that, what is the way forward?

Regards

Paul:

A rich man seldom starves to death, so the hunger problem is economic. You can read more about it on my wife's website: www.foodfirst.org.

I wrote a short Blog on the Population Bust here:

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/02/global-demographic-transition.html

Dear Trivedi Ji,

Namasthe!

Do you think that there IS a point crossing which nature cannot heal itself? In that case, how do we quantify and identify that point exactly using the Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium? Will identifying that point end the 'human beings dont cause climate change' debate once and for all?

I didn’t get your last sentence. “the problem of quixotic behavior would slowly get steadily stream lined”. This is a positive thing, isn’t it? Please clarify.

Regards

Saif:

You said “study human dimension with a view to design and devise mechanism on how to cope with this change”.

True. But I have a slightly different angle to my question. I put forth the argument that we are giving too much weightage to studying climate change which is the ‘effect’ to the ‘cause ‘ -human behavior’. Any suggestions on how one can take the spotlight away from climate change studies and focus on human behavior? Thank you.

Regards

Paul:

You made some really interesting points earlier. As you said, we cannot simply remove humans from the ecological system, that would be simple wishful thinking. No, on the contrary, we need to solve this issue without wishing for any magic that would vanish humans from the scene.

1. “Is what is really at stake from climate change our current living standards and societies?”

I believe yes. I believe that most of us are addicted to our current living standards and that we are afraid to make changes, wishing for ‘status quo’. Yet, because we have a conscience, we do some soul searching and determine that the small ‘inner voice’ hinting that we are the cause of the problem is true. We know, but we can’t. That’s the pity. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

2. “Is nature truly at risk?”

That is a question to which we will never know the answer. “Part can never determine the whole”. But that is besides the point. We need to correct our behavior for ‘our’ own sake. Not for nature. But for our evolution and survival.

3. “Is it not a good thing that our current way of living is endangered?”

In spite of what some may think, I agree with you. The pressure of climate change will drive us to exert ourselves to find answers and in the process, become better human beings, irrespective of what the final outcome is. No, you are not ‘denying climate change’ but squarely blame human beings for the current mess.

But I disagree with you on this “I just hope that we run out of polluting resources sooner rather than later and give other species a chance!

IMHO, It strikes me as being rather pessimistic. A doomsday revelation sympathizer perhaps?

I am of the view that a problem arises for us to become men and stand up and solve it. I also believe that the climate change problem is only a symptom and the deeper causes lie within us. When we introspect and change ourselves we become better. Climate change is the ‘instrument’ used by nature to pressurize us to change our ways and evolve higher. Without humans in the picture, there would be no nature. We ARE the central fixture in creation(‘God made Man in His own Image…”?), the externals are only props to aid our evolution in consciousness. Remove man, and the props become insignificant.

Regards

Rajiv Pandey Ji:

Namasthe!

Your is a positive comment. Indeed we have to see where we can "play role to modify the situations such as climate change; behavioral aspects and being human."

Any pointers on how to achieve that? To do that first

1. We need to emphasize that human 'causes' translate to climate change 'effects'

2. We need to understand human nature and find ways of modifying human behavior.

Regards

Carlos:

"The real issue is: are the problems, troubles, hurdles, challenges and the like irreversible at the point they have reached?"

IMHO, we will never know and cannot predict it at all. When faced with a problem, we cannot predict the outcome beforehand. We can be positive and hope for the best and exert towards solving it, but the final outcome is beyond our means. But in going through fire, we become better men. We can save the ship or go down with it, is not the issue. How we look ourselves in the mirror and admit to our wrong doing and take steps to change our behavior is, IMHO, the game changer in the puzzle nature has set before us.

Regards

Glenn:

I completely agree with your " Carbon dioxide is an effect, not a cause.". Climate change is a symptom, an effect, and not a cause at all.

But the "the hunger affecting 1 billion people." is IMHO, also not the problem per se.. It is what created it.

Human nature & behavior.

Regards

Dear Carlos,

Nature will survive. It is trivial as you put it above. However, I think most of the participants of this thread are perceiving nature as a “super organism” which feeds and take care of us. Subjectively we humans know but this nature. My point is what kind of nature will survive when we continue to behave as we used to? It is no need to bewilder Gea! Everybody knows the radiation tolerant algae “evolved” in the cooling water of nuclear power stations. Unfortunately (?), radiation tolerant men have not been invented yet but some have worked on it diligently...

By the way, I agree with the opinions of Jeremy, Nelson and Paul.

Dear Paul, I have my doubts with arguments such as Cotgrove's. My main fear is about extending the history of logo-phobia (fear to science and technology, fear to research, hence the need to constraint them).

What we do need is more and better knowledge. I am confident about the contingencies that may come fro so much research and reflection. Of course the events are - especially on the long run - unpredictable. But the evolutionary ability consists in harnessing previously unexpected shifts. This is my point.

Now, @András: I agree with the bottom line of your argument. I am the last of the anthropocentrists thinkers. Nature does not need us as much as we do need nature. Our cousins the Dinos are a clear enough example.

Now, for the time being, we ought to take the point seriously as long as we are concerned, ourselves. But at the end of the day I am with you about the vitality of nature.

Nonetheless, please allow me a radical turn, thus: it might not be the end of mankind as such- only the end of this western civilization. My best bets are on it. Would you agree?

Ravindra Nathji,

1) If there is a slight shift in abiotic parameters from the normal, the Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium says that the nature would see that it returns to the normal in a short period of time. But what humans have been doing is trying to accelerate this shift say in case of temperature, releasing of gases which has effect on Ozone layer, without any let up. In such a case, the Principle doesn't work for the benefit of mankind.

By Quixotic behavior I mean some of the following:

2) a) Every year, millions of hectares of forest are moved down throughout the world & this reduces green cover- leading to reducing plant transpiration, which leads to non-cooling of atmospheric temperature-leading to higher temperatures. Lesser the green cover,such areas do not attract rains - which slowly leads to making of arid regions.

b) Again advancing desert sands over agricultural fertile areas brings down green cover, leads to enhancing of temperatures & retreat of various life forms from such areas.

c) Tarring the public roads with black coal tar,leads to enhancement of temperatures,which can be avoided.

d) Coloring buildings with different hues especially in tropical countries leads to increase in temperatures of such buildings- leading to use of various cooling agents entailing unnecessary overheads - which could have been avoided.

e) Fermentation of cereals for manufacture of alcohols for use as transport fuel adds to increase of CO2 - both at manufacturing point & during use in engines - leads to increase in CO2 load - leading to increase in air temperatures.

The list is endless.

Nature doesn't have the wherewithal to annul these effects beyond a point, & if humans cross that point - backlash is the result.

I am afraid that the question somewhat miss the point of the climate change issues. if CC is really of anthropogenic origin, and we are going to the limit of nature to accommodate the pressure, then it is us the humans on earth that have to adapt or if fail to do so, would perish. so, it is very crucial that we could conclude what is going on with our climate and be prepare for the worst, and it is with costs if we can affort it.

I agree with you. However, sadly, it is still impossible to seperate the anthropogenica climate change from natural climate variability ......

Dear Paul M.W. Hackett, as an information only, I want to tell you that I put a relevant question about pollution and Albatros here in RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_human_beings_seem_not_to_care_about_other_living_beings_in_Earth?cp=re72_x_p3&ch=reg&loginT=YGMBN3IQF8U08LyWvAH7jNNZUlyWElw4jl5hoEIjFNU%2A&pli=1#view=538878f2d039b1e2198b457b

The first time, my question "was deleted by an editor". Probably we prefer to close our eyes to our bad actions... Anyway, thank you for your interest.

The ecosystem over the world have been disturbed and the trend will be overwhelming . I think the situation will be serious if not harness with knowledge about the impact of climate change on ecosystems.

@ Raveendra:

"Isn’t that a way to perpetuate the ‘human beings don’t cause climate change’ belief? IMHO, climate change is just a symptom, only a messenger..."

I appreciate your clarification. For my part, I don't see why biophysical science or technological innovation would perpetuate denial? Taking your disease analogy--climate change may be a symptom, but sometimes the symptoms cause problems that need treatment too. So for example, when a bacterial infection causes extreme fever we treat the root cause with antibiotics, but we also treat the symptom (fever) so as to avoid some extremely negative consequences. The accumulation of greenhouse gases has already 'locked in' changes that will require adaptation and technological innovation. That will happen because (eventually) people will demand it, and governments will respond (in many cases, they already are responding). As I social scientist I'm all for the idea that we need to better understand human behavior, but I think the climate problem is severe enough that treatment is going to require broad expertise spanning social and biophysical sciences and engineering.

"Nobody ever mentions the "climate-gate" memos anymore"

Probably because they were found not to be significant and no 'climategate' existed. There may have been a sentence in your newspaper about that, rather than a headlne of the original story.

"far more politics and money-grabbing behind this whole "warming" and "climate change" ideology than good science"

So, you are saying there is more money in environmental research than there is in the oil and gas industry? I think not.

"This is a socialist agenda"

Given that it's the Western governments driving the agenda, that would mean largely rich capitalist governments are attempting to lose their own money. Climate change is also accepted by oil companies. Only politics has the deniers of any note, for their own purposes. It's an easier solution to say there is no problem and we can keep consuming.

"inaccuracy of predictions is the hallmark of a bad theory"

Inaccuracy is built into science. Dogma into religion and politics.

I agree with expert. Now the Earth has got new sphere i.e. anthropo-sphere and at this stage carbon foot prints and human interventions should be on priority in the academics as a multidisciplinary approach. Well said by some one i.e. "LET THE NATURE BE NATURAL".

James DeMeo... Maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Do I understand that your "research" is related to Wilhelm Reich? and Orgone theories? It seems to me that there is a lot more evidence to support the "theory"of AGW than there is to support any that you propose....I respect your opinion, but the facts do not support it.

Kenneth: Climate gate papers... really? There is no evidence of scientific malpractice in these emails. If there were, we would never have heard the end of it and heads would have rolled. The science community, unlike the skeptics community, is accountable for willful falsehoods. Following multiple inquiries across the continents these scientists were completely exonerated (if chastened about their occasional poor choice of language). This topic is now nothing more than a fetid internet zombie. All I discovered personally was that the scientists are human;-big surprise? I REFUSE to allow myself to be drawn back into this debate again. The theft of these emails was a reprehensible crime that was only intended as a political weapon to unsettle climate negotiations in Copenhagen; it lamentably succeeded in its task. Any scientist who values the privacy of personal communication, and the integrity of the scientific method should agree that this trial of respected scientists by the right wing media and blogosphere was abhorrent. Anyone who gives serious consideration to these emails is in my opinion a duplicitous participant in the crime.... yes, I clearly feel very strongly about this. You will not get any more discussion from me on this topic as further discussion only adds specious credibility..

You are wrong because even if you initially thought they were cheating for some reason, you can't equate that with the fact that Richard Muller, an arch and ardent critic (listen to the things he said), finally had to admit they were correct... and their conclusions have now been repeated time after time using different criteria. This is exactly the fetid internet zombie I described. There are too many of these hoaxes perpetrated by some misguided and other clearly miscreant skeptics who apply profoundly different standards of proof on others than they apply to themselves. I am sure may want to answer. But I will decline to reply.

Perhaps a broader answer to the original question is in order here, independent of all the personal agendas on the reality of climate change.

While individual human nature is highly variable and convolved with culture ( read E. O Wilsons recent controversial book The Social Conquest of the Earth" .. the collective behavior of humanity as an agent that consumes nature and its resources is quite clear. Of course, one argues that this produces a greater good for humanity but that greater good, has a limited time window.

So yes, anything that helps to correct our global consumptive nature I view as positive, tho I think any global correction is unlikely.

Our collective behavior is a balance between the sacred and entitlement. At the moment, the balance is clearly tipped to entitlement.

Jared Diamond's Book, COLLAPSE, is recommended to learn about examples of societies that ignored man-made environmental threats to their communities and perished (for example, the Greenland settlers from Norway; and the indigenous people of the Easter Islands).

If drastic steps are not taken now to ameliorate global warming, everything else will not matter.

I don't want to get into a big thing about the Validity of Jared Diamond - I teach an entire course on this subject. I will just say

1. The Jared Diamond Story of Easter Island has very credible opposition.

for one example:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island

2. The role of Natural hazards (volcanos, earthquakes, firestorms, climate change, iced age mega floods) as a threat multiplier for collapse of culture has largely been

under estimated. (Google on Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis for an example).

3. Eastern Island is not an ecocide analog for the planet. Easter Island was

an extremely remote place with new exchange mechanisms. The global economy is a highly connected thing. Global climate change is likely to be a serious economic challenge, but its an adaptability event, not a collapse inducing event, and of course, some believe that there is no climate change and its all natural -

doesn't really matter, the climate is still changing and history shows that many cultures are not particularly resilient to this.

What you say is true. Nevertheless, it is cause to ponder what can probably happen, based on the mounting evidence indicating that man-made CO2 emissions are a driving factor, and that the momentum of the changes taking place will be hard to reverse.

If you have any doubts about whether to to take preventative action or not, consider the contingency table of consequences of taking action now or not taking action now, under the two assumptions: 1) Man-made global warming is true; and 2) Man-made global warming is false. The best strategy to take is that that minimizes the maximum loss. The inescapable result of applying this Operations Research tradeoff analysis is that you must take preventative action now. The consequences of not acting now might be catastrophic to human life on this planet.

I think most will agree that nature can take of herself, as long as interference to natures repairing process can be held to a minimum; which brings us back to the original question and the human dimension’s insatiable appetite to consume, too much. Excessive consumption leads to excessive growth, leaving us with excessive waste, disrupting natures balance. Human behavior will be the solution to climate change, or our eventual demise.

However do not forget the possible intervention by Nature; a cataclysmic earth event could supersede all humanities efforts..

Yes I often tell my classes that humanity is currently in its adolescent stage and I agree, how long does this stage last?

I think we should not forget the natural balance in spite of all science. Rational balance implies on all including mighty earth. Every action has an equal reaction. If we force to do anything we always get response of it from opponent. So it high time to study the human factor and its interventions to watch its impacts towards balance or imbalance.

Kenneth (once again from other posts) points out the fact that CO2 emissions are directly related to population growth and the economic growth we need to alleviate poverty and disease. I agree. But the two need not be linked. As I have written in other posts and in my recent book, energy is not the problem... We want more, cheap and abundant energy to tackle the challenges of poverty and disease. Our challenge is to decouple the generation of energy from the production of CO2. This can be done if we use all available sources of carbon free and low carbon energy available to us. To answer the ACTUAL question :-) I think the human dimension is much more complicated than the science. One part of the answer is education. In the US where climate denial is a well funded social counter movement there is a direct correlation between education and attitude to climate change. But I have noticed how even the educated can be blinded by the dogmas of religion and political affiliation. Perhaps we emerge from puberty to adulthood as a race when we finally abandon tribalism and superstition?

Dear All,

The purpose of my asking this question is to draw attention to the "Human

Dimension". The deeper purpose is to understand human nature.

IMHO, climate change is only a symptom, an effect which has a cause. The cause is 'Human' and the effect, among many others, is climate change.

Now, in the evolution of human consciousness, the initial stages are, as many others have pointed out(David, Bothun, Fillipo, Antonio), immature, adolescent.

One of the characteristics of this immature stage is not taking responsibility for one's own mistakes. Another is looking for 'external' factors to blame as the cause and ALSO, trying to solve the 'external' problem' with 'external' solutions like technology.

The next step in evolution is a mature stage where one introspects and realises that he/she is the cause of the problem, either directly or indirectly. There is taking responsibility for one's own mistakes and the acceptance of one's own role. Another characteristic of this mature stage is looking for 'internal' factors to blame and ALSO, trying to solve the 'internal ' problem with 'internal' actions and solutions, like self-discipline and self-restraint.

This evolution of consciousness is not uniform across populations. Some are more evolved than others and they clearly see their role in the 'effect' and connect it at once to their own actions and initiate actions to self-correction. Some stubbornly insist that there is no correlation of the 'cause' to the 'effect'. Its obvious that such people have deeper issues and need to evolve higher.

Therefore, IMHO, the 'human dimension' is more important than climate change, which is at best only a symptom. The roots must be addressed and the symptom will be healed. Focusing attention and effort on the symptom, will only be futile. The best thing to do is to:

1. Address the problem at the very root: Human Dimension.

2. Encourage & educate people to take responsibility for their own actions.

3. Enforce legislation that halts environment abuse.

4. Not neglect the symptom: Climate change and address it too, but knowing clearly that human actions are responsible.

"BE the change you want in the world"-Gandhi.

Regards.

To all:

Low energy nuclear reactors (LENR) is worthy of serious consideration as a innocuous, yet powerful source of cheap energy. We are, hopefully, not limited to burning carbon-based fuels or hazardous high energy nuclear reactors. We need to keep an open mind to new paradigms.LENR is still struggling with establishing a theoretical basis for the phenomenon; but it appears to be establishing an ever stronger experimental foundation.

"Won't nature take care of itself?' In the history of life on earth, hundreds of thousands of species have come and gone. Humans are but one existing in a small sliver of earth-time. Our occupation of earth is infinitesimally small compared to others long gone. The climate chaos for which we are responsible is impacting earth over a few decades in ways comparable to past geological events which spanned thousands of years. Of course nature will take care of itself. But the future we are creating may not include us.

Antonio

Are you referring to "cold fusion"? something happened there after the Pons&Fleischmann hoax?

Ken: "Science by assertion or through denigration has never been useful"... and who brought up the stolen emails? I ask not to go back there again because we are better focusing on finding agreement. You hit on something I feel very strongly about. Let me admit- as we all must- that I am influenced by my life experience as much as anyone and am conscious of the fact there is a lot of dogma embedded in all science. Anyone who tries to do science who is not acutely aware of this, will never do good science. Remember that I do agree with you VERY much about the need to focus on the roots of the climate problem (population) and not just the fruit (impacts). I am not an energy expert, but I read a lot leading up to publication of my book (get an inspection copy from Pearson) and I am convinced that we can make substantial progress using a combination of gas, renewables, nuclear and even (choking at this point) clean coal. Even the EPA estimate that 30% of power generation in 2030 will come from coal (so much for "killing coal") so we can't ignore that elephant in the room. There is not one magic solution, but together these solutions offer a chance to create jobs, increase national security, clean the environment and slow climate change. Just as a point of reference for the future... I do not want to go back to preindustrial levels of CO2.... that would set us on a course for cooling again and I fear that as much if not more that warming. Maybe we need to see CO2 and other GHG as a precious climate change resources that- if used wisely and sparingly- could keep us in what we perceive as a sweet spot in climate for some time to come (meaning, of course, a sweet for those already in positions of power and wealth :-) but whatever....

Back to the question... the human dimension. Climate change is a moral/ethical issue that is complicated by competing imperatives. One is the need to address UN Millennium goals and address issues of poverty, education and disease. This needs cheap, abundant and available energy for electricity and transport and rapid economic growth. Another imperative is to cut GHG emissions to avoid the damaging impact of climate change. But we have to do all this while maintaining international competitiveness, job creation, global/national security and energy security. Each of these objectives is laudable. We rightly desire it all, but struggle to find a path that can meet all objectives at the same time. Gains in one area are often perceived as losses in another. So my question as an earth scientist and not a social scientist or philosopher is how can we arrive at a consensus that meets all goals at the same time? The answer needs to be earthy and practical and not suspended in bubbles of high morality and philosophy. We need to convince politicians to make any solution workable- so the material we have to work with is deeply flawed- and our political systems are simply not structured to reward those who put aside for tomorrow what can please us today. Global awareness could have been part of the solution, but along side globalization came social networking where our understanding of the world is now filtered and selectively distilled more that at any time in recent history. Bottom line is that it is hard to get someone to care for sustainability when they can't get food or medicine for their children and it is hard to get a politician to vote for a policy that may be good for his grandchildren, but may hurt their current constituents... Social inertia.

Dear Harry,

Yes LENR is the new name for Cold Fusion."

Yes, every month there are more results from various experimenters, including Stanford Research Institute.

Ken: re the first point... I would never presume to think you "don't even know about" anything. I consider that condescending (and actually incorrect but that is besides the point). I refer all other readers to this reputable and non partisan site to put an end to the climategate zombie once and for all.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Re the second point. What is not acceptable to any of us all is the undiminished pollution of the atmosphere with ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. What is acceptable is a more challenging question. 350 ppm seems to be a good place to aim to reach and hold to see how the climate system stabilizes when all feedbacks are accounted for. That is achievable and most economists believe it is better to take action today than to wait to take action in the future. Have you read Pacala & Socolo?

http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/Science-2004-SW-1100103-PAPER-AND-SOM.pdf

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/intro.php

I think these goals are Specific, Measurable, Realistic and Time constrained (SMART :-) and can be achieved with minimal economic impact.

However, this is not our private discussion board (not that I would mind) this is supposed to be a question on understanding and changing human perspectives. How do you think we can change human perspectives so that we pay greater attention to the challenges of population growth and the imperatives of economic development... of which climate change is but an important dimension? How do we address issues of sustainability in the world today?

Dear David,

I am not an expert on this topic, but I become suspicious of the point of view you espouse. The telltale signs of giving catchy, politically inspired phrases like "climategate zombie" or acronyms like "SMART" or referring to economists instead of scientists as to what measures can be taken or wanting to stifle this discussion, as being off topic.

Sure, human nature is the ultimate issue or cause, but shorter-term, more achievable action must be taken before we reach the tipping point.

I'm a little surprised that nobody has yet made mention of systems approaches to the question. Others have commented that the Raveendra's question assumes that there is an either/or answer, but the deep inter-relationships between anthropocentric, often much simpler systems (cities systems and agriculture being the two most obvious) and the much larger, richer and more complex global ecosystem mean that we can't deal with one without affecting the other.

The challenge is not so much to refocus efforts on the human dimension as it is to find ways to communicate the challenges of climate change effectively so that governmental and business sectors can see how important it is to act now in radical and innovative ways to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change. That requires a deeper understanding of both the science (what are the immediate impacts that will make people sit up and take notice, like a greater certainty that we will have more extreme weather events; that sea levels may affect significant coastal populations within the lifetimes of our children if not ourselves, that the economic costs of what mitigation and adaptation we can put in place now pale in comparison to the insured and uninsured costs of dealing with climate-induced events and so on) and the human dimension, which requires us to engage in compelling ways (with stories and methods of communication that will allow the hazards to impress themselves upon decision makers and voters in such a manner that they prioritise climate change above health, security, education, growth and all the other issues that determine who is put into power in national and international governmental organisations.)

Perhaps the question could be rephrased to ask whether it is possible to simplify the key issues of climate change in global systems in such a way that they can be addressed with the right priority in the much simpler, more linear human political and business contexts?

Antonio sorry that you are suspicious. You have no need to be. The general term internet zombie is in general use and is well and appropriately used for ancient scientific canards that have been addresses many times but refuse to die as they circulate through social media and blogs... as with the climate gate pseudo scandal. Please look up the web site I posted if you are not yet completely familiar with all the facts surrounding that debate. As for the SMART goals, do you mean to suggest that our solutions should not be specific, measurable, achievable and time limited? If it it just the acronym you object to then remember that many of us spend a lot of time teaching and this is one way we help students remember. To suggest that politics and economics have nothing to so with climate solutions or that science alone has the answer does not make sense to me (maybe I misread). Science offers projections based on different assumptions about our future actions. Politics and economics determine what our future path of action will actually be. In my opinion, one of the reasons we make so little progress is that too many scientists have left the public debate undefended and open to the misguided obfuscation of climate skeptics. We will not find a solution standing behind our lab desks throwing spitballs at the opposition while complaining that we are not making progress.

@Antonio:

Your post explicitly contrasts social scientists (economists) with scientists in a manner that appears to be pejorative toward the former. Science is typically defined as the systematic study of the natural phenomena or as a process of acquiring knowledge through systematic inquiry. I think--hope--we can agree that humans are part of nature, and our actions/behaviors are readily observable, natural phenomena? If so, then I would propose that while different disciplines and fields of study construct knowledge using different methods, measures and assumptions, that we are all scientists. Put more succinctly, what phenomena we chose to study--whether atoms, organisms, ecological communities, or human behavior--does not determine whether we are scientists. I believe that the disciplinary walls that we've constructed are largely arbitrary, and have become an impediment to the acquisition of knowledge. The climate system is a great example that human/social phenomena should not be--cannot be fully isolated from ecological systems.

Filippo,

There's a difference between talking about a system and systems thinking. I did search the thread before putting my original comment together and found no explicit mentions of systems thinking. I've searched again on 'system' rather than 'systems', as I did in my first search, and I'm not convinced that any of the additional comments highlighted were talking explicitly about a systems approach.

Jeremy: I wrote this thinking your comment was for me... I now see it was not, but just for the record... I have gained some of my greatest insight into the issues of climate change reading some excellent papers by social scientists.. especially on the social amplification/attenuation of risk, social inertia, social networks, the rise of countermovements and so much more. On the contrary, I see social science as a critical bridge between the observations of science and the political will to enact change.

Ken: Lets not make this too personal. This is not the place. If I hurt your feelings then I regret that. This is a tough debate, but it is a critical debate. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I reserve the right to challenge you when I think you are wrong; just as I applaud when I agree with you (as in the issue of population growth). I certainly expect to "get as good as I give", but I choose not to make it ad hominem. I only wish you well. My name is "Kitchen" by the way (singular).

Re Sketpics: In my opinion skepticism is indeed a core scientific virtue. If you ever get to read what I actually publish you will see where I write that we ignore comments from skeptics at our peril. But at the current time- in my opinion- there is a fine line between honest skepticism and the emergence of a more dogmatic and prevalent denialism (please note I do mean to imply this to be you) that is blocking rational debate in the US Congress at a time when we need to start addressing the climate issue. We have number of informed and prominent skeptics who argue with force and integrity. The rest feed off manufactured uncertainty and conjecture that bears little resemblance to good science, but nevertheless stops us achieving political consensus. I read what the prominent skeptics write and listen to what they have to say. I believe I have read and own most if not all of the mainstream books written by prominent skeptical scientists (and others) over the last 10 years! They make some good points, that I take on board, but I accept the validity of climate data, the observations, the analyses that point to the need for us to take action now. By the way, I am a geologist, so I will be glad to discuss ancient climate change with you at any time. It is something of a specialty for me, as this is how I came to have an interest in modern climate change in the first place.

Raveendra: I think the following is relevant to the topic. Apologies if it is not...

It seems to me that when science and politics become intertwined it is often the science that suffers. Who as a scientist did not cringe when we heard Sarah Palin decry fruit fly research as "pointless". I think that part of the reason is that (in the USA), we have so few scientists in congress that we speak different "languages" that are often (mutually) unintelligible. And we now see an anti intellectual-anti science movement developing that is truly insidious and threatens our future economic competitiveness. We see this is the reintroduction of creationism in to the school's curriculum, the banning of text books that teach standard evolutionary theory, an increase in the amount of fundamentalist "christian" homeschooling, legislation to ban stem cell research and early term abortion. Each of these gives prominence to religious dogma over scientific evidence in order to instill core conservative and idealogical beliefs on the nation. My question to Raveendra is how much of this in the USA is related to a combination of deep economic recession, changing demographics and a feeling of hopelessness among those who belong to a dwindling economic elite who cling to an image of "their America"...an image that only ever existed in their imaginations. I see parallels between the inability of some to accept the reality of climate change and the ability of others to accept that the "old order" (what ever that was) is losing ground rapidly. Is it coincidence that they are so often the same people?

its called weather, Ken... I can prove almost anything I want to by selecting certain years of data. That is why we go to large data sets to uncover statistically meaningful trends.

However, I do agree that 350ppm is probably a pipe dream. But I see no reason not to try and work towards that goal. With an exponential rise in the ability of technology (a la Kurzweil) we might expect to see a confluence of technology and demand by mid to end Century. But... as the quality of the lives of my grandkids depend on us getting this right, I prefer to start taking action now... especially as there are so many positive and even market-led solutions to start applying to the problem. I am glad to see that you acknowledge a distinction between "legitimate skepticism" and some other form. I tried to address that in my last posting.

While I hope to not trigger more personal agendas here I will just say (and can post more quantitatively later when I find the calculations I did on all of this a couple of years ago).

"Returning back to 350" is essentially impossible on any reasonable time scale.

Two main reasons:

1. Its not just CO2 its CO2e (including methane) - so we can turn off all sources of fossil emission today and still have a problem. Anthropogenic methane emissions come largely from rice consumption, cow consumption and sewage - all of which grow with population directly.

2. The CO2 uptake rates by various planetary sinks operate at lower exchange rates now than in the past.

and then there is this

3. The rate of CO2 addition is accelerating in the atmosphere - in the mid 80s it was 1.5 ppm per year, and now its around 2.3 ppm. The time for a strategic trajectory to return to 350 would have been in the early 1990's - we have way overshot that return trajectory so that adaptation is now upon us, and the mitigation window has passed.

My personal bet, based on current trajectories, we will be lucky to stabilize at 700-750 ppm. We have definitely overshoot the 400,450 and 500 CO2e stabilization targets.

Others may disagree (not we are currently at about 430-450 ppm CO2e depending on what you choose for methane IR absorption cross section

In general, I am not a big "fan" of the IPCC process (although I have contributed) as it tends to oversimplify the science for the sake of a consensus process.

But its instructive to look at this from the 2007 report on stabilization levels:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-4-2-2.html

actual real world activities since than, have closed that project stabilization window, even though we supposedly had production disruptions in the global economical meltdown of 2009

finally one more comprehensive source on the whole stabilization methodology and assumptions - this came out in 2005 - if this report is rewritten in 2015 all of the numbers will change quite a bit.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/728001031.pdf

@ David:

I apologize for being suspicious of your motives. Thank you for taking the time to explain to a novice, such as myself, what was meant by your choice of words. I was falsely reading between the lines.

@ Jeremy:

I am sorry if I hurt the feelings of any economists. But, it is clear that the global warming phenomenon lies in the physical science domain. The optimum solution must be a systems solution, involving many, many disciplines (including economics policy) and their interactions.

Regarding economists: In general, it has been my experience that if you know an economist's political persuasion, you can pretty much predict the bottom line of his solution, as it relates to the have's and the have not's. In fact, back around the 1800's the field was called "political economics." So, in general, I do not expect a very objective opinion from economists, as compared with physical scientists.

@ Andrew:

Descartes is reputed to have dealt with the issue of "Is there a God?" with respect to the question: "Should I worship God?" He set up a contingency table of possible outcomes for worshiping versus not worshiping. Then he identified the worst case, as being: If there is a God and I do not worship Him, I may spend eternity in Hell. So he chose to avoid this worst case, and, thus, he chose to worship, whether or not there is a God.

Likewise, in today's world in which much of the population is in doubt (or has been propagandized to believe so) as to whether Man-Made Global Warming (MMGW) is significant or not. And the choice to be made is whether to act now to prevent runaway global warming or do nothing. The contingency tables indicate the worst case is to do nothing when MMGW is significant. So, like Descartes, we humans must chose to act now, whether MMGW is significant or not.

This approach from logic (and systems analysis and Operations Research) obviates the problem of trying to convince doubters that MMGW is significant, and may get them to act now.

@David: No apology necessary, David. I'm glad to hear that your interactions with social scientists have been positive, and have resulted in additional insights. I teach in an interdisciplinary school where expertise ranges from microbiology and chemistry all the way to environmental ethics. The more time I spend with people from different disciplines, the more I'm convinced that solutions to (or more appropriately, management of) environmental problems won't come from disciplinary silos, but from truly integrative work.

"I am sorry if I hurt the feelings of any economists. But, it is clear that the global warming phenomenon lies in the physical science domain."

Antonio: I disagree. I think the recognition that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are contributing to warming shows that the physical, biological, and social systems are linked. (More to the point, "problems" are human constructions. The earth won't care if we make it unlivable for ourselves.) I think your view of economists is kind of narrow. I regularly work with an economist that seems to get a kick out of picking apart the arguments of ideologues. Regardless, what raised my hackles was the implication that economics (or the social sciences) aren't science. In any case, the rest of your response suggests we agree on where solutions to the problem lie.

A very simplified explanation of the current situation:

Every living organism (and society of organisms) keeps high organization inside (low disorder or entropy) which is compensated by an increased disorder (entropy) in the surrounding world. The higher is the population and its social organization, the higher is the generated surrounding disorder. Now, we are reaching the point where it becomes difficult for us to resist on the pressure of surrounding disorder caused by us. Beyond this point a new balance will be established …

@ Ken:

I feel we are highjacking a very good, important and relevant discussion thread for our own disagreement. OK, we disagree. Lets leave this for another thread that is more relevant. What is your opinion about Raveendra's question?

But to answer your general questions and assist others interested in data...

The impact of climate change on the USA is regional and varied, but well established- new readers can see the recent comprehensive report @ http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

but this is a very small part of the global data set. For global you will find both NASA and NOAA great recourses at

@ http://www.climate.gov/

@ http://climate.nasa.gov/

For the cryosphere try NSIDC @ http://nsidc.org/

You might also read the IPCC science report

@ http://www.ipcc.ch/ and more real data.

I am more of a generalist that a specialist (in this overall field) but I have found that a geological perspective is useful and- as with any interdisciplinary issue- I am prepared to accept the validity a building consensus around the meaning of the data from experts in other specialized fields. If you do not trust the work of NOAA/NASA or the amazing reversal of opinion (based on the data) of Richard Muller-once a true skeptic

@ Berkeley Earth http://berkeleyearth.org/

and for skeptics

@http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf

...or the mountain of literature across disciplines that points to the reality and risks of climate change- then you and I are unlikely find a point of consensus.

As a less taxing exercise take a peek at the exercises I prepared as part of a NCSE and NASA funded project... links on my research gate page. Folk will find enough data to keep them busy for a while there (but it does need an update).

If your general point is simply to point out that the data are incomplete and that there are anomalies, then of course I will agree. If you believe those anomalies undermine the overall scientific consensus for climate change, then we must agree to disagree. As for publications, please point me to what you have published on this matter recently. I could not find that on your home page. I am prepared to read with an open mind and read carefully. I ask you to get a free copy of my book from the publisher and read what I conclude about all these issues. You may be surprised.

Indeed, the national climate impact assessment report released by the Whitehouse on May 6 is actually pretty good in terms of its organization and discussion of regional impacts the United States. The actual data graphs, etc, are far more important than the words. The section on impacts in Alaska is particularly good because we are now

observing year to year significant changes (wetland loss, structural damage from permafrost collapse)

I also add this to the list of references in this thread:

https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/research/data-facts-background-2013/index.html