Message Boards Message Boards

Meditation Culture

Spiritual Culture and Climate change

Toggle
Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 4:47 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/23/15 9:12 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 9:31 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/24/15 5:09 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/25/15 11:21 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/26/15 9:48 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/26/15 5:27 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/27/15 3:55 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/27/15 5:27 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/27/15 8:35 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/27/15 10:29 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/27/15 11:22 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 9:38 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Mark 10/24/15 5:02 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change bernd the broter 10/23/15 10:29 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 12:20 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Eva Nie 10/23/15 1:42 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Derek 10/23/15 10:41 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 12:32 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/23/15 12:39 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 12:55 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/23/15 12:59 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/23/15 1:01 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Eva Nie 10/23/15 1:59 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/23/15 2:17 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Eva Nie 10/23/15 3:23 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change tom moylan 10/23/15 1:11 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Chris Marti 10/24/15 10:35 AM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change C P M 10/23/15 3:17 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Psi 10/23/15 8:03 PM
RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change Eva Nie 10/25/15 1:52 AM
Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 4:47 AM
howdy friends.
this is more of a rant than anything else but i would like your, collective, opinions about the following.

i was browsing dharmaseed.org just now for something i could load onto the mp3 player for my drivetime listening.  i meandered to the "collections" section ( http://dharmaseed.org/collections/ ) and saw about 10 talks from different teachers having to do with climate change.

i have not listened to any of them yet so am perhaps speaking out of school but i would bet that every single one of them takes the stance that climate change is real and its cause is our bad human behaviour.  this means that they would be forwarding the concept called anthropomorphic climate change.

it is my opinion that this is a political rather than a scientific theory and its basis is not factual but rather a consensus based concept.  this is not to say that i believe human beings have no impact on the environment but rather to say that the climate change dogma is just that and to see this injected into a "spiritual context" is insidious and unhelpful.

let me have it.

tom

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 9:12 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
howdy friends.
this is more of a rant than anything else but i would like your, collective, opinions about the following.

i was browsing dharmaseed.org just now for something i could load onto the mp3 player for my drivetime listening.  i meandered to the "collections" section ( http://dharmaseed.org/collections/ ) and saw about 10 talks from different teachers having to do with climate change.

i have not listened to any of them yet so am perhaps speaking out of school but i would bet that every single one of them takes the stance that climate change is real and its cause is our bad human behaviour.  this means that they would be forwarding the concept called anthropomorphic climate change.

it is my opinion that this is a political rather than a scientific theory and its basis is not factual but rather a consensus based concept.  this is not to say that i believe human beings have no impact on the environment but rather to say that the climate change dogma is just that and to see this injected into a "spiritual context" is insidious and unhelpful.

let me have it.

tom

Hi Tom,

It seems to me the theory on green house gases trapping energy is a solid theory that is validated. Are you doubting that theory ? If so on what basis ?

Why should spirituality not relate to politics ?

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 9:31 AM as a reply to Mark.
hi mark,
i think that the greenhouse effect is easily provable on both large and small scales.  an auto sitting in the sun, a greenhouse itself and even the earth.

acknowleging that does not, however, imply that I underwrite the logical leap to anthropomorphic global warming. 

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 9:38 AM as a reply to Mark.
hi again mark,
i would not say that physics has no relation to spirituality or visa - versa.  in fact, i think they are intimately related.

if i believe a physical theory to be unfounded by the evidence produced, though, i would certainly not want to include that theory into a cosmology.  the fact that i believe this to be a political rather than a scientific issue is the reason i am uncomfortable in mixing the two disciplines, at least in this case.  i think the exploration of concepts which have rational validity and which have a solid connection should be done.

in this case, the people behind it are evangelizing a type of religion (anthropomrphic climate change) and making a moral appeal to a site promoting spiritual technologies, mostly buddhism.

i wonder how bill  hamilton, who i believe was a really rational guy, would read this.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 10:29 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
Why should meditation teachers NOT speak about the first training, i.e. Morality/Sila/...?

There is little doubt about the theory, unless you listen too long to GOP-hired marauders. Climate change is an extremely important topic, which has been studied for a long time. Its ramifications are enormous, and most parties don't have an interest in promoting anthropomorphic climate change if it's not actually true.

Why not talk about that? This is very important, and not saying anything about it is a statement in itself. Considering that climate change is most notably caused by greed and delusion, the connection to Buddhist concepts is obvious.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 10:41 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
I was reading the Jed McKenna books recently.

He says that real spiritual teachings point you inward, whereas fake spiritual teachings point you outward.

Since climate change is all about what's happening "out there," it has nothing to do with genuine spiritual teachings.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 12:20 PM as a reply to bernd the broter.
hi bernd,
to your first point, did you read from  me somewhere that sila should not be a point of dharma teaching?  i did not say or imply that.

you write that there is "little doubt about the theory".  what does that mean to you? that there is no doubt?  can you provide to me a cogent argument, based on irrefutable facts, that 'global warming', or its younger sibling 'climate change',  is caused by human activity or that global warming exists?  this is an essential point in science.  a consensus does not equal proof. a consensus can be bought, coerced or just simply asserted.

your saying that it is an extremely important topic is certainly the position declared by certain sectors but is it really?  if one has not looked at the evidence then one should ask oneself why one believes this.  i would also argue against your point about the major proponents of this doctrine / religion as having no interest in this theory.  the major players are either benefitting directly from the infrastructure created to "manage" climate change or receive their funding from those former lobbyists.  this is not settled science and anyone who does even a little research on the subject knows this.

i agree that greed and delusion are important topics for buddhist and didactic thought generally. in fact my insights in buddhism have led me to intensively investigate all assumptions about the world and this life in it.  one learns how to differentiate truth from delusion and exactly that process of discernment has brought me to this particular discussion.  could i be wrong about this particular topic? certainly! but i would like to be confronted with direct evidence instead of assertions or consensus based opinions.  please be clear that i am not talking about YOU here but the initiators and proponents of the pseudoscience behind this.

we are getting a little far afield though, perhaps because of the topic and paerhaps because of my attachment to it.

is global warming real?  is it man-made?  what is climate change? is it the same as global warming? is that real, whatever it is?  is it a good idea to try to sell this idea in a dharma forum if ones goal is to encourage awakening and not to push a seperate agenda?

peace

tom 

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 12:32 PM as a reply to Derek.
howdy derek,
i don't know enough about jed to say whether or not i'd use him as an authority but i would say that if it were a fact that global warming or climate change were in fact caused by human activity that would imply a certain level of responsibility via intention.  from that perspective it would be an "internal" theme.

my personal take is that it is a political theme and is only connected to any teachings via a very tortured route.  it is as relevant as one's choice for any of the idiots running for president or dogcatcher.

what does climate change have , precisely, to do with the buddhist teachings?  this question is for anyone who reads this.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 12:39 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
i have not listened to any of them yet so am perhaps speaking out of school but i would bet that every single one of them takes the stance that climate change is real and its cause is our bad human behaviour.  this means that they would be forwarding the concept called anthropomorphic climate change.

Wait.... you didn't listen to any of the talks? This is a great opportunity for your practice -- you have created an imaginary problem, a story, about some things you have yet to experience. Suffering over a story!

emoticon


RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 12:55 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
hi chris,
i have downloaded them and will listen to them.  please go to the link i provided in the first post and count the references.  that is the point.

i have already listened to another dharma talk where this theme was espoused as a fact.  also since the original post today i have doen some research into the authors of a pdf file upon which many of these talks are based.  the author, his connections and his agenda tend to support the idea of a political theme more than a dharma teaching.

while i am not free of suffering its a big jump to say that i am sufferng over a story, or over this.  this is a discussion about what belongs in a dharma forum.

cheers

tom

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 12:59 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
what does climate change have , precisely, to do with the buddhist teachings?  this question is for anyone who reads this.


If I believe in the sancitity of all beings and that I have personal responsibility for their well being in some sense, through my intentions and actions, then I have to do something to reduce their suffering, if I can. If I can reduce the effects of climate change, effects which are already causing a lot of suffering in places throughout the world, then I should act to reduce that suffering. That's my take on the connection between climate change politics, or frankly any kind of politics, and buddism. We do not live in a world that can be separated into this domain and that domain and never the twain shall meet. Everything seems to be linked, albeit in complicated ways. So there is no reason that my spirituality should not inform my politics. None at all. This is, I think, almost the essence of what the historical Buddha was saying throughout his post-awakened life. It is what motivated his quest to awaken - the desire to end suffering.

You and I no doubt disagree on the fact of climate change. I think it's quite obviously the case that human beings have generated enough green house gases to cause this planet to begin to warm. We have yet to see the worst of this, but we will if we don't take more drastic measures very, very soon.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 1:01 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
while i am not free of suffering its a big jump to say that i am sufferng over a story, or over this.  this is a discussion about what belongs in a dharma forum.


Who brought this issue to a dharma forum? I thought you did by starting this topic  emoticon

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 1:11 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
hi chris,
 you think its obvious that greenhouse gases caused by man cause climate change.  that is a belief.  you make assertions. that's all.  i disagree with that, as you say.

i also believe that our intentions are our karma and our responsibility. knowing what is what is important.  i hold that global warming is religion and pushing this agenda in a buddhist forum pushes that religion.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 1:42 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
hi bernd,
to your first point, did you read from  me somewhere that sila should not be a point of dharma teaching?  i did not say or imply that.
Well I think it may be a bit optimistic to think that people on various parts of the path will fully and completely see where trainings and belief systems of the current culture infiltrate their current thinking and beliefs and be able to fully separate them, not sure how much even 4th pathers can do that fully.  So for that reason, I think current cultural belief systems and trainings will probably always infiltrate a large percentage of dharma talks. 
you write that there is "little doubt about the theory".  what does that mean to you? that there is no doubt?  can you provide to me a cogent argument, based on irrefutable facts, that 'global warming', or its younger sibling 'climate change',  is caused by human activity or that global warming exists?  this is an essential point in science.  a consensus does not equal proof. a consensus can be bought, coerced or just simply asserted.
Concensus has changed through time and culture and many previous cultural agreements have turned out to be very very wrong so concensus has not been super accurate so far.  And often it's very hard to get a job in a field if you are not touting the party line, very few right now would dare to speak against global warming, even thought the same people cannot accurately tell me if it will rain next thursday or not or reasonably explain all the past spiralling temp and weather alterations the Earth has had even before humans were predominant.  We do have some idea of how the system works and that the green house effect is one thing that does play a probably strong role, but how predominant that role is, how much humans can effect that aspect, and how much other poorly understood other factors play in, are still not well understood.  But despite us having  a huge role, a minor roel, or no role, judging by the past, the Earths weather will sooner or later change, often even rapidly.  Ironically, in that one area where the is tons of data and really really even better concensus, not much has been done to prepare our world for such changes, infrastructure is very fragile.  If I were czar of the world, I'd probably allocate a tad more resources in that direction personally.  That way no matter what happens, climate researchers turn out right or wrong, hurricaines, earthquakes, solar flare, super volcano, plague, we'd be more prepared to survive.  Change is a natural part of Earth, we can try to take reasonable precautions, but there is not way to stop things from changing.  
your saying that it is an extremely important topic is certainly the position declared by certain sectors but is it really?  if one has not looked at the evidence then one should ask oneself why one believes this.  i would also argue against your point about the major proponents of this doctrine / religion as having no interest in this theory.  the major players are either benefitting directly from the infrastructure created to "manage" climate change or receive their funding from those former lobbyists.  this is not settled science and anyone who does even a little research on the subject knows this.
Yes sure, people in power manipulate opinions to benefit themselves.  Information is power.  Many people are now manipulating the currrent belief systems to make money.  If the current belief systems were to change drastically, then those in power would manipulate the new belief systems.  It doesn't matter what the current belief systems are in that regard, changing them does not change the overall situation much as long as the belief systems are just variations on the same old themes.  But people are very attached to their belief systems and often their sense of self as a crusader of truth and justice (or whatever) is wrapped up in their beliefs so to challenge those beliefs can often create intense defensive anger. 
i agree that greed and delusion are important topics for buddhist and didactic thought generally. in fact my insights in buddhism have led me to intensively investigate all assumptions about the world and this life in it.  one learns how to differentiate truth from delusion and exactly that process of discernment has brought me to this particular discussion.  could i be wrong about this particular topic?
To challenge all assumptions, even those about global warming, the nature of reality, etc is IMO an excellent idea.  But also I think we can't totally eradicate all our trainings and supppositions, there will always be some so I won't say that I can be completely objective on anything, I can however try to be more aware of my lack of objectivity.  ;-P

certainly! but i would like to be confronted with direct evidence instead of assertions or consensus based opinions.  please be clear that i am not talking about YOU here but the initiators and proponents of the pseudoscience behind this.

we are getting a little far afield though, perhaps because of the topic and paerhaps because of my attachment to it.
When strongly attached to a topic, it's very hard to be objective.  Maybe work on that aspect, to let go of strong attachment, then you can look at it more objectively.  Less fear of right or wrong actually seems to improve doing better at being right, ironically. 

is global warming real?  is it man-made?  what is climate change? is it the same as global warming? is that real, whatever it is?  is it a good idea to try to sell this idea in a dharma forum if ones goal is to encourage awakening and not to push a seperate agenda?
Trying to block the current cultural tide of belief systems is going to really cause you a lot of frustration and angst, IMO, so long as you are strongly attached to any counter belief.   Only likely solution is to let go of attachment.  I've come to suspect over time that both sides of the climate change debate may be both wrong anyway.  But the airy fairy stuff is discourage here so I won't inflict that any further on anybody.  ;-P 
-Eva

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 1:59 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
while i am not free of suffering its a big jump to say that i am sufferng over a story, or over this.  this is a discussion about what belongs in a dharma forum.


Who brought this issue to a dharma forum? I thought you did by starting this topic  emoticon
Well I for one have many times in dharma circles heard 'the story' of the current concensus beliefs about global warming, how humans are causing it, etc.  Like any beliefs, it's a story, just as we each have stories we tell ourselves about our selves, our personality, our life, etc.  There are things that happened to us and then on top of that there are beliefs we form about how, why, etc it happened, what it means, etc.  We have filters and layers we build up in our minds to interpret information and fit it into what already believe.  One could argue that Moylan assumed a story that does not exist because he did not watch the shows first, and that I think IS a valid point, he made some assumptions, but from what I've seen, the assumptions probably came from a lot of interactions he had before seeing the video links, based on observations I also have made seeing the same thing.  I just was not super bothered by it because I am not strongly attached to any one side on that subject.  

So to get back to the point, there was an insinuation that Moylan was speaking about a situation that does not exist becuase he did not do his research first.  A valid point, but I think the situation does exist as I've seen it myself.  I can also see why one might assume he experiences suffering (beyond the normal level of dukkha one might assume) since he brought the subject up in the first place, but yes, that would also be an assumption, he could just think it's interesting or something.  I agree it's a likely assumption but still an assumption that could be wrong. Seems like assumptions form a large part of the perpetuating of emotional arguments.  We might be better off trying an approach of trying to use less of them (hey isn't that sort of the point of this thread?).  If Moylan says he is not 'suffering' I have not yet seen evidence from him to suggest he is not being as honest as he can about it.  But assumptions are like mosquitoes in the tropics, no matter how many you swat, a new batch seems to breed and being sticking to the skin in no time!   And you may not even notice the ones sticking around your back where you can't see easily!  ;-P

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 2:17 PM as a reply to Eva Nie.
Hi, Eva.

I put smileys on my comments when they're meant to be tongue in cheek. I was not suggesting Tom Moylan was actually suffering. I was pointing to the missing self-reflection in his comments - he admitted to not listening to that which he was decrying. That seems odd to me. Also, he seems to suggest that a belief is the same as a religion, and he says that bringing a belief to this message board isn't why we're here. I find that odd, too. If I had a penny for every time someone (me and Tom Moylan included) posted a belief on this board I'd be a very, very wealthy person.


emoticon

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 3:17 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
This seems like "negative serendipity".

Hurricane Patricia barrelled toward southwestern Mexico Friday as a monster Category 5 storm, the strongest ever in the Western Hemisphere

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/23/mexico-hurricane-2015_n_8369528.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 3:23 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Hi, Eva.

I put smileys on my comments when they're meant to be tongue in cheek. I was not suggesting Tom Moylan was actually suffering. I was pointing to the missing self-reflection in his comments - he admitted to not listening to that which he was decrying. That seems odd to me. Also, he seems to suggest that a belief is the same as a religion, and he says that bringing a belief to this message board isn't why we're here. I find that odd, too. If I had a penny for every time someone (me and Tom Moylan included) posted a belief on this board I'd be a very, very wealthy person.


emoticon
Yeah, religion is not really the word I would use either, more like sacred cow [definition: something considered (perhaps unreasonably) immune from question or criticism.]  ;-P
-Eva

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/24/15 10:35 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
 you think its obvious that greenhouse gases caused by man cause climate change.  that is a belief.  you make assertions. that's all.

This is an interesting comment that I'd like to follow up on just a little. It is a belief, but I'm pretty up to date on the science behind climate change and, as Mark stated early upthread, the science is pretty compelling. Like anything based on scientific studies and data culled from lots of sources both past (ice cores from Greenland, for example) or the present (recorded measurements of average global temperatures over the last 100+ years), it's best expressed as a set of probablilities. The probability that the planet is warming based on human actitivity is so high that it's quite difficult to find a climate scientist, physicist, chemist, biologist or any scientist in a related field who'll say that isn't the case. So I'm basing my belief on those facts. I don't think that's anything like religion, but obviously your mileage varies.

Edit: If you would like to see climate scientists' information on climate change you can visit this site:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/


RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/23/15 8:03 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
howdy friends.
this is more of a rant than anything else but i would like your, collective, opinions about the following.

i was browsing dharmaseed.org just now for something i could load onto the mp3 player for my drivetime listening.  i meandered to the "collections" section ( http://dharmaseed.org/collections/ ) and saw about 10 talks from different teachers having to do with climate change.

i have not listened to any of them yet so am perhaps speaking out of school but i would bet that every single one of them takes the stance that climate change is real and its cause is our bad human behaviour.  this means that they would be forwarding the concept called anthropomorphic climate change.

it is my opinion that this is a political rather than a scientific theory and its basis is not factual but rather a consensus based concept.  this is not to say that i believe human beings have no impact on the environment but rather to say that the climate change dogma is just that and to see this injected into a "spiritual context" is insidious and unhelpful.

let me have it.

tom

Heya, 

Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect, without human intervention. Venus had the right temperature start up temperature.  Temperature is rising now, on Earth.  Probably due to the so called intelligent life on Earth relaesing the trapped energy of the Sun that has been stored for miilions of years, (fossil fuels.)  

In my humble opinion if humanity does not change course we are probably doomed.  I see no sign of humanity changing course.  We are, as a species mostly ignorant, deluded, and too arrogant to change our behavior patterns.  Not so much different than the Trilobites. :-P

If we burn, we burn from our own ignorance as a whole of humanity.

This was written by Carl Sagan in 1980.  Since then Humanity has done Jack and Shit about Global Warming, and Jack left town. emoticon
Bolding mine....
There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. In the burning of coal and oil and gasoline, we are also putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Like Venus, our stratosphere even now has a substantial mist of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. Our major cities are polluted with noxious molecules. We do not understand the long- term effects of our course of action.


http://io9.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Humanity will need more than the sector of Spiritual Culture to take action, Spirituality has a dismal track record for concerted efforts beyond delusionary proselytizing. Opinion alert...

Psi


RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/24/15 5:09 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
hi mark,
i think that the greenhouse effect is easily provable on both large and small scales.  an auto sitting in the sun, a greenhouse itself and even the earth.

acknowleging that does not, however, imply that I underwrite the logical leap to anthropomorphic global warming. 

Hi Tom,

You believe in the greenhouse effect but you do not beleive in anthropomorphic global warming. Do you think human activity is not generating (and has not already generated) enough greenhouse gases to cause the greenhouse effect to take palce ? 

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/24/15 5:02 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
hi again mark,
i would not say that physics has no relation to spirituality or visa - versa.  in fact, i think they are intimately related.

Hi Tom, you may had misread what I wrote. I asked why politics and spirituality should not be "mixed". It seems to me that spirituality has political implications. I can see that some people would like to keep them separate but I don't see any rational reason for that. It seems similar to trying to separate spirituality from morality. Spirituality starts as a practise but I'd hope it develops to be embodied all the time - including when we are engaged in political activity (which is unavaoidable).

You might be interested in the concept of the precuationary principle - so rather than asking for a proof of why massive greenhouse gas emissions would change the climate we should be asking for proof as to why massive greenhouse emissions would not radically change the climate. Running irreversible experiments at the scale of the planet without deep undestanding of the system seems as far from reason as it gets.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/25/15 1:52 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
bernd the broter:
I will sum up the most important points in this thread, repeatedly emphasized by Tom and Eva
tl;dr, the wise bread's comprehensive summary of useless thread
-Some spiritual teachers accept humanity's responsibility of preserving the planet because failing to do this may eradicate the Dhamma in just a few decades. This makes me quite upset.
-Climate change caused by humans is a big conspiracy theory. This is forwarded by evil biased infrastructure builders. Of course the oil industry doesn't have any opposite interest at all, and the fact that their best efforts to derail don't include much more than stupid things such as 'Climate-Gate'. Of course they have thought about paying real scientists to show the opposite, but the rest of the evil scientific community just doesn't listen to those because apparently scientists are all nutjobs nowadays.
-Everything's a story.
-Somehow everything being a story is relevant to the thread topic.
-People get angry about other people voicing questionable-to-dangerous ideas
-This is a big problem, and meditators should totally care about not getting attached to their ideas stories and somehow that's relevant to the thread topic.

tom moylan:

hi bernd,
to your first point, did you read from  me somewhere that sila should not be a point of dharma teaching?  i did not say or imply that

Look at this:
tom moylan:

it is my opinion that this is a political rather than a scientific theory and its basis is not factual but rather a consensus based concept.  this is not to say that i believe human beings have no impact on the environment but rather to say that the climate change dogma is just that and to see this injected into a "spiritual context" is insidious and unhelpful.


Here is an incomplete list of topics that spiritual teachers must never address if they want to avoid touching politics and political theories:
  • LGBTQIA[...] folks are routinely discriminated against. We could do something about this. There are various theories around here. Everything from "homosexuality can be healed" to "having only 2 genders is an arbitrary and obsolete concept."
  • There are people living in poverty. We could do something about this. There are various theories around here. Everything from "Discrimination and education in early childhood have a big effect on this" to "stupid people procreate other stupid people, who rightfully end up in poverty"
  • See a pattern here? The same thing about health
  • General education
  • Freedom of speech
  • Democracy
  • (Women's) suffrage
  • Piracy, Copyright
  • and lots of other things
Demanding that spiritual teachers don't address topics about which there are scientific/political theories (good luck making a distinction outside of mathematics) is akin to demanding that they don't address Sila in anything more than the most basic topics (don't steal stuff, don't attack people etc.)
Perhaps you might show me as to where anyone said climate change (the changing of climate temperature over time) was a conspiracy theory (in fact I specifically said that climate has changed many times in the past and will continue to do so and I don't know of anyone that disputes it), and where did someone say that the oil companies do not have incentive bias, and please point out where anyone DEMANDED that spiritual teachers do anything in particular.  This was just a discussion of an idea.  I don't see those things written anywhere and I'd hazard to guess that none of the writers believe them either, if I am wrong, the writers can speak up and correct me on this.  But I suspect those accusations are in fact a story that makes sense in your head but is not based on reality.   If you don't like me saying that things are stories, well then I guess you better start blocking the reading of my posts or you may be in for a long road of self inflicted misery.  ;-P
-Eva

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/25/15 11:21 AM as a reply to Mark.
hi mark,
i do believe in the greenhouse effect fact. i also believe in cause and effect which leads directly to the logical conclusion that even the first fire ever lit by early man contributed to carbon dioxide being released and, it being a "greenhouse gas", contributed to that proven effect.

by extrapolation it is reasonable to assume that the tons of CO2 released over the following 100,000 plus years have had additional, even cumulative, effects.

the planet heats and cools in cycles and the greenhouse effect is itself only one factor contributing to that, and not even a large one.  CO2 is one of several gases branded as a greenhouse gas.  there is no proof that CO2 is a leading or a following factor regarding global temperature.  so is it cause or is it effect?

there is no consensus on what the optimal temperature of the earth should be.  in fact, many horticulturalists encourage a significantly higher CO2 level and many growers supplement their growhouses with CO2 due to the obvious promotion of plant growth, a factor encouraged by "climate changers" to battle CO2 increase.

CO2 is given the reputation of being essentially a poison gas when the opposite is much closer to the truth.  it is essential.

event the name "Global Warming" had been changed for the less precise "Climate Change".  As meditators we understand change.  Everything changes all the time on all levels and climate aint any different.  the promotors of human caused global warming could no longer argue against the continuung mountain of evidence continuing to pile up which counter their assertions.

global temperature has been directly measured precisely since about 1850 and that only in a very spotty and distributed fashion. there are new (satellite) technologies available to much more precisely measure earth temperature over a much wider range than the data sets relied upon by the older climate model makers,  these are not being accepted due to their possible divergence from the "consensus" view.  chris mentioned 100 years of temp data above in the thread.  thats almost right as far as reliable human measurements.  he mentioned ice core samples too but didn't mention whether these were to bolster CO2 levels or earlier temperature calculations.  just for the general conversation, there are many different ways of leaching temperature data assumptions from various ancient artifacts including ice coreing, tree ring width, carbon suffusion and isotope decay measurements amoung others.

the figures used to promote the global warming hypothesis have been faked and twisted to suit the climate models and agendas of powerful people and institutions with a real profit and power driven agenda.

even the IPCC, the UNs body "studying" "Climate Change" and a group one would hope would be based on rational results, has had plenty of scandal associated with it and its partial promotion of their agenda.
IPCC - Climategate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

By the way, the UN wants to get away from their current nation dependent funding paradigm and a global carbon tax is their chosen desired income stream source. 

It is often said that there is no more discussion allowable on this topic and that the science is settled. It simply is not and one should be careful to accept it as such by simply buying int the propaganda.

Dissenting Scientists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

As far as motivation for promoting Anthropomorphic Climate Change look at the very complicated "Cap and Trade" scheme promoted by Gore and Blood (no kidding) of the law firm Generation Investment Management (GIM) are the best known of the many profiteers in this booming industry.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

So..i do apologize for this wall of a rant.

This started as a reaction I had to a dharmaseed.org listing of collections which contained over 12 dharma talks with "climate change" in the title.  As you can see, I have a very basic difference of opinion than the mainstream and so this (percieved) injection of this topic, and the prolific count of this narrow theme rang my alarm.

I have not yet had time to listen to ANY of them yet but I would bet anything they do not support my position.

Thanks for writing.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/26/15 9:48 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
Some answers to Tom Moylan's "no human caused climate change" comments:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Change? Yes, of course eveything changes. That's a buddist principle that is observable, verifiable via meditation. It's just odd, however, to say that because everything changes we should ignore and not attempt to reverse any change that is not healthy.

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/26/15 5:27 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
howdy chris.  i can't disagree with your point.

cheers

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/27/15 3:55 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
hi mark,
i do believe in the greenhouse effect fact. i also believe in cause and effect which leads directly to the logical conclusion that even the first fire ever lit by early man contributed to carbon dioxide being released and, it being a "greenhouse gas", contributed to that proven effect.

by extrapolation it is reasonable to assume that the tons of CO2 released over the following 100,000 plus years have had additional, even cumulative, effects.

the planet heats and cools in cycles and the greenhouse effect is itself only one factor contributing to that, and not even a large one. 



The difference in temperature of the earths atmosphere with or without greenhouse gases would be huge. The current average being about 14 deg C, if there were no greenhouse gases it would be about -19 deg C. What basis are you using to decide that greenhouse gases are not a major factor in the earth's surface temperature ?


CO2 is one of several gases branded as a greenhouse gas.  there is no proof that CO2 is a leading or a following factor regarding global temperature.  so is it cause or is it effect?


I guess our first step should be to agree on whether greenhouse gases are an important factor at all. The science I'm aware of claims that they certainly are. But you claim that is not the case. If you are right then we don't need to debate about which gases are important in the greenhouse effect.

You might be interested in the concept of the precuationary principle - so rather than asking for a proof of why massive greenhouse gas emissions would change the climate we should be asking for proof as to why massive greenhouse emissions would not radically change the climate. Running irreversible experiments at the scale of the planet without deep undestanding of the system seems as far from reason as it gets. I'm interested to have your take on this - where do you get your confidence that CO2 emmissions are certainly of no risk?

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/27/15 5:27 AM as a reply to Mark.
howdy mark,
i agree with you that the earth without CO2 and other greenhouse gases would be a lonely place.  they are indeed a major factor playing their special role.  the sun and its cycles are believed by many to be THE major factor inlfuencing the heat of our blue ball.  the temperature of the oceans and of the solid earth have a much higher thermal capacity than does air, lending a stability to the temperature spectrum.

i would never suggest that greenhouse gases play no role at all.  they are really important but CO2 is also necessary.  the debate methinks is whether human additions to the amount of it in the atmosphere substantial change the earths temperature.  i wrote substantial intentionally.  i never sai,d what you asserted above, that greenhouse gases play NO role in the atmospheric environment.

the precautionary principle.  yes, i know what that is and think that in this debate it is a non starter. the powers pushing the CO2 global warming theory for their own selfish purposes would prefer that we take their apocalyptic warnings as fact and fork over carbon taxes and concede the entire dabate to their  assersions.  this is not how the scientific method works.  the pp is not a principle at all.  it is a method to coerce by playing the fear card in my experience.  one could assert any possible situation as threatening and deploy the pp as the basis for caution. 

as to your question about geoengineering.  this is something which has been going on for a long time and is imo one of the most dangerous things our governments are doing to the planet.  far more potential for irreversible global damage than CO2.

thanks mate

tom

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/27/15 8:35 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
howdy mark,
i agree with you that the earth without CO2 and other greenhouse gases would be a lonely place.  they are indeed a major factor playing their special role.  the sun and its cycles are believed by many to be THE major factor inlfuencing the heat of our blue ball. 


The sun transmits energy to the earth's surface, the greenhouse gases reduce the energy that is emitted back into space.

Earlier you wrote "the greenhouse effect is itself only one factor contributing to that, and not even a large one" now we agree that greenhous gases are "indeed a major factor". Maybe that is enough for you to suspect that the rest of your reasoning may not be solid enough to deny climate change.

I assume you accept that of the greenhouse gases CO2 has the most impact in causing the greenhouse effect. The link provided by Chris has the evidence of that.

I assume you also accept human activity has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, an increase of around 150% since the industrial age is what I have in mind. Again the link by Chris provides evidence. 

the debate methinks is whether human additions to the amount of it in the atmosphere substantial change the earths temperature. 


You have agreed that greenhouse gases are "indeed a major factor" and we know CO2 is the most influential greenhouse gas and we know it has increased by around 150% due to human activity. So by your own reasoning I don't understand how you could not conclude that human activity will have a major impact on the climate.

There are a small percentage of people who benefit directly from the alternatives proposed to burning fossil fuels for energy. You seem to be very sensitive to the advantages those people gain. There is clearly another small percentage of people who benefit from the continued extraction and use of fossil fuels. I'm not sure why you are so concerned about one group as opposed to the other group.  I wonder if you think both of those groups are trying to manipulate your opinion or just one of them ?

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/27/15 10:29 AM as a reply to Mark.
hi mark,
you are agreeing to a lot of things for me.  climate change is different than global warming.  methane is 100x worse a greenhouse gas and poses more of a direct threat to global warming than does CO2 for example.  as to my sensitivity toward people benefiting from dirty industry where does that come from?

RE: Spiritual Culture and Climate change
Answer
10/27/15 11:22 AM as a reply to tom moylan.
tom moylan:
hi mark,
you are agreeing to a lot of things for me.  climate change is different than global warming.  methane is 100x worse a greenhouse gas and poses more of a direct threat to global warming than does CO2 for example.  as to my sensitivity toward people benefiting from dirty industry where does that come from?

Hi Tom,

You started the topic on climate change, so I referred to that.

If you see that CO2 is a major problem and you believe that methane is even more of a problem then it furthers the case for human activity causing climate change. If you have any proof that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity are unlikely to cause severe climate change then that would be great.

If you have a sensitivity toward people benefiting from dirty industry then you would be best placed to answer the question of why. Certainly those institutions and individuals have massive resources at their disposal. Maybe they are as good at manipulating government and public opinion etc as you claim the climate change supports are. If they also have more resources as their disposal maybe they've done a better job than you imagine. 

That there are issues in climatology and the political process etc is without doubt. But I have not seen any theory that explains why the current level of greenhouse gas emissions can go on indefinitley without severe risks of climate change. If you can't point to a theory like that then I wonder why you think it is reasonable to take a risk of severe climate change ?