Title of new report from the Institute of Food and Resource Economics of the University of Copenhagen: Earth on Fire
Hmmm. “E a r t h o n f i r e”. Should be easy to prove. Let’s have a look at the numbers.
Ignition temperature of paper: 451 °F or 233°C
(Source: Ray Bradbury. * see comments)
Average temperature of the earth: 61.43 °F or 16.37 °C
(Source: National Climatic Data Center July 2009 report – adding 20th century average plus July anomaly)
Yep, spontaneous surface ignition is possible at any moment in your area. Tune to CNN for official global fire emergency news. /sarc
Note the polar bear image on the front cover. Old habits die hard. – Anthony
from Eurekalert
New questions in the climate change debate — essential ethical and philosophical perspectives
Researchers from within the fields of science, the arts and theology add new perspectives to the climate change debate with the book ‘Earth on Fire — Climate Change from a Philosophical and Ethical Perspective,’ now available as an open-access book
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: “Earth on Fire — Climate Change from a Philosophical and Ethical Perspective, ” edited by Mickey Gjerris, Christian Gamborg, Jørgen E. Olesen and Jakob Wolf.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
The book aims to show how climate change raises not only a number of questions which can be answered within the scientific domain, but also many issues of a more universal nature based on philosophical, political, ethical and religious views on the world is and how it should be. What is “good “?
The earth is on fire. So we need to both act fast and think carefully about what we are doing. The ethical questions that climate change raises may be new in their global character but behind them are still the well-known, basic universal questions such as what is “being good”, what should we do and who should we consider, how should we prioritise our efforts in a situation where there are more challenges than solutions, and how do we structure the debate of climate change issues so that everybody is heard and the best arguments gain acceptance.
Lifestyle changes are necessary
Associate Professor at Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment at LIFE – Faculty of Life Sciences at University of Copenhagen, Mickey Gjerris is one of the editors of the book. He says about our new situation:
“Countering climate change requires large changes to our lifestyle. Ethical thinking offers an opportunity to understand nature in a way which means that we should not only interpret these changes as a sacrifice we have to make but, rather, as an opportunity to establish a relationship to nature where protection of it is seen as a opportunity for man’s further development.”
Science as an integrated part of society
The authors of the book hope that it will contribute to researchers reflecting on the underlying values for discussion.
“It is important to understand that science is an integrated part of society and not an outside factor that can provide an independent description of what is happening while we are politically deciding what should be done”
“Today there is a tendency to lament the politicization of climate change research and to pretend that other researchers have an underlying agenda while you pride yourself on being firmly based on the objective foundation of science. But we all have an agenda, and the debating climate will gain by us recognising this”, says Mickey Gjerris.
Free English online version
The English online version of “Earth on Fire- Climate change from a philosophical and ethical perspective”, Edited by Mickey Gjerris, Christian Gamborg, Jørgen E. Olesen, Jakob Wolf, is free for all to use www.earthonfire.foi.dk. All the authors ask is that readers will share the existence of the book with their colleagues and fellow students so that as many as possible might benefit from it.
The book, which was published in a Danish printed version earlier this year, consists of seven chapters which show how the climate changes are rooted in our scientific, philosophical, political, ethical and religious understanding of the world, and concludes with three cases where the climate debate issues are discussed: CO2 trading, GM crops and biofuels. The cases are addressed by experts who have played a prominent role in the public debate of these topics.
“Earth on Fire – Climate change from a philosophical and ethical perspective” can be downloaded from this page: www.earthonfire.foi.dk where you can also read about the various chapters and authors of the book.
For more information, please contact Associate Professor Mickey Gjerris, LIFE -Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen on tel.: +45 35 28 21 65, mobile: + 45 25 37 03 85 or by e-mail:mgj@life.ku.dk
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At the bottom of the http://www.earthonfire.foi.dk page they say:
* Please help us improve the next edition: Send comments, ideas, criticism and praise to Mickey Gjerris at mgj@life.ku.dk
It might be a fool’s errand, but some thoughtful comments AFTER reading the book could be passed on. At least it would test the ethics of the ethicists.
Analysis complete.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but…The Earth is not made of paper.
It is however largely SiO2. Which doesn’t combust at all, because it’s already bonded to two oxygen atoms.
Bradbury? I’m aware of his work.
(Ahem… Simpsons quote, for the other scifi geeks)
Yeah, so tempting to respond to the authors… Is this another Salem Witchhunt?
How ethical is it to continually divert attention to a questionable problem like AGW while allowing ignoring polution of the enviroment by toxins and carcinogens, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.? Big industry and special interests are only too happy to have CO2 play the heavy role while the real damage goes on at an increasing pace.
Discussion is good. We ought to discuss this for at least another three to six years before doing anything rash. We could discuss what to do if Earth cools for 30-50 years and whether or not we can, if fact, do anything. We could discuss how much better it will be to have great amounts of less costly energy if we want to cool folks in Cleveland or warm them in Copenhagen, or feed them in India. Lots of good topics. Let’s get on with the discussions while we wait to see what new variation in climates comes our way.
We must stop our selfish consumption of the precious earth. Every living thing is unique in the universe and we must save each strand of replicating DNA so that life can thrive without humans. Wait… sorry, if there aren’t any humans, I don’t care what happens to the rest of the universe.
“Open-access” meaning they have no hope in hell of selling any copies, so they’re giving it away.
What is truly appalling and most infuriating is how these pompous, fatuous fools simply assume the validity of anthropogenic global warming, and either pretend there is no debate, or are completely unaware there is one. And of course to doubt the “Earth on Fire” catechism is to invite divine retribution for failing to recognize “what is good.” Heresy, you know.
/Mr Lynn
They must be regular customers with “What’s angry, hot and green.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/25/what-is-angry-hot-and-green/
Neither make any sense.
Peter Jones (19:43:19)………. “How ethical is it to continually divert attention to a questionable problem like AGW while allowing ignoring polution of the enviroment by toxins and carcinogens, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.? ”
————————————————————–
Actually I’d go a step beyond that… How ethical is it to continually cry catastrophe over pollution in the West, without first acknowledging the huge steps that have been taken to address that very problem….?
The Enviro fascists are fabulists who exaggerate and lie. They see catastrophe where none exists.
Is not air, water and soil pollution in the developed world better that it was 40 years previously?…. Yes it is.
Toxins and Carcinogens are nowhere near as deadly as parasites and disease.
Humans in the so called polluted developed world live the longest lives in all of human history….. So progress can’t be all bad ‘eh Peter?
Doesn’t the above synopsis of this book confirm what so many of us have been saying for so long?
In fact it is a fine example of the mock-science called sociology. What a wonderful thing sociology is because it requires nothing other than an agenda. Armed with just that, you can address any issue of science or, indeed, any other factual analysis by examining (in reality, rationalising) its effect on your agenda.
For so long as you have fluffy seals and fluffy polar bears on screens behind you, you can ignore that the former meet a gruesome end in the jaws of the latter because you are presenting an image that is kind and friendly and, yes, fluffy. People do things that might, in one way or another and to even the most minor extent, have a deleterious effect on fluffy things. Immediately the scene is set. Fluffy is good therefore the human activity under discussion is bad.
“But it makes life better for humans who previously had poor housing, no heating and unreliable sources of food” you bleat to no avail. It is to no avail because even those who are lifted from poverty, disease and malnutrition are human beings and, therefore, in the non-fluffy camp.
A British blogger to whom I will not link (because: (a) I don’t know how and (b) his language is more than a touch fruity) once wrote of the “lentilisation” of British state education. Where once children learned things and were examined on a combination of their knowledge of facts and their ability to analyse, now they are examined on the extent to which they can expound politically correct arguments and empathise with the emotional responses of “victims” of non-politically correct behaviour. Only the tree-hugging, lentil-eating, tofu-knitting perspective is deemed valid.
We started with man-made global warming but things really heated up when the world stopped doing so, because at that time man-made global warming turned into climate change and the avenues for promoting the fluffy agenda increased exponentially. In this field it is not lentilisation but fluffilisation that rules the roost. Two legs bad (unless on a bird), four legs good. Actually, forget the four legs good. It’s all about two (non-avian) legs bad.
From there other agendas are free to flourish, of which national big government and one-world government are the most obvious. Only big government can control those nasty humans. Just as they ignore the natural juxtaposition of fluffy seals and fluffy polar bears, so they ignore the inevitable consequence of concentrating power in the hands of a remote few. And, never forget that the few become more and more remote (and more and more few) because dissent is the enemy and must be suppressed.
Welcome to the sociologically justified world of fluffilisation.
Somebody needs to get that poor polar bear an agent. If he was collecting residuals for all the times the alarmists have published his picture, he could afford a big refrigeration unit to keep his iceberg intact and have the Omaha Steaks people keep him supplied with his daily protein needs. Hell, he could probably even afford those $100/lb Wagyu steaks that Barack and Michelle are so fond of serving at the White House.
The ‘green’ movement of today reminds me a lot of the flagellant movement of the middle ages. If we punish ourselves enough, then maybe we will all be saved….
I think of it a lot when I see a Smart car owner that just dropped 20-25K on their de-tuned go kart.
* Interesting thing about the ignition temperature of paper, which I chose as an example of something that easily ignites: not all references agree on the temperature.
For example the first reference I cited, The Handbook of Physical and Mechanical Testing of Paper and Paperboard – Volume 2 says 450°F which is what I first used.
The Hazardous materials chemistry for emergency responders, Volume 55
says: paper is at 446°F
and a third, Wikipedia
says: Paper: 424-474°F
Who to believe? So after a number of comments, I relented on 450°F and went with the common and well known temperature of 451°F popularized by Ray Bradbury in his book Fahrenheit 451.
I wonder what reference he used back then when he was writing the book?
Reply: Ahem. It has been clearly demonstrated from the latest ensemble run of GCMs (Global Combustion Models) that paper will ignite in the 424-474° range noted above with an error range of +/- 600° F. ~ ctm
It was pretty hot in the L.A. area today but I didn’t see any spontaneous combustion of newspapers or books. There is a big brush fire going on just North of me……..hmmm.
Different kinds of paper probably ignite at different temperatures. My late Uncle Harold would have known; he was a chemist who worked for Champion Paper in Hamilton, Ohio. His Christmas presents came wrapped in the most elegant, shiny, solid-color paper I’ve ever seen. I’ll bet that took a lot to get burning.
/Mr Lynn
I’m reading a short book on Prohibition and rum running. The attitudes and behaviors of the Prohibitionists are identical to those of the Groonies (Green Loonies). Overstate the problems, oversell the solutions, and create a bigger mess than the original problem.
That polar bear photo cover is screaming out “this is a propaganda; don’t take it seriously.”
Those people have no shame. No brain neither.
I’m getting extremely frustrated by these doom and gloom scenarios.
The earth has been warming for the past 100 years, by now it’s increased around .8C in temp and the sea level has risen accordingly.
Now is there any empirical evidence that this is disastrous?
Our food production has increased dramatically, I know of no homes (in Australia anyway) being inundated by rising sea level forcing occupants to leave and rebuild, there has been no increase in natural disasters like hurricanes, droughts etc so I can see no problem if we continue down this path for the next century?
What exactly is the problem?
janama (21:33:32) : You wrote:
“The earth has been warming for the past 100 years . . .”
Actually, with a few exceptions, Earth has been warming for about 19,000 years. There are also shorter term variations. And I agree with you, namely, “ What exactly is the problem? ”
These are the typical RC comments which then Gavin shields from response.
“Craig says:
26 August 2009 at 9:27 PM
The problem is that the pseudo-skeptics are a lot better at muddying the water than scientists are at clarifying it. For example, the pseudo-skeptics can point at bogus petitions like the Oregon petition. It has been laughably easy for the denialists to demonize the IPCC because they haven’t even made even a minimalist effort to present their case in a convincing manner. .
Lou says:
26 August 2009 at 10:47 PM
1. The deniers are not interested in winning debates, merely sowing enough doubt to delay action. That’s why they argue online so willingly and, some would say, as relentlessly as the Borg on Star Trek: They’re simply putting on a show for the mainstream voters who happen upon the online “debates”. The current situation is like a fight between a pro wrestler and Frasier Crane (from the US TV sitcom). One wants to put on a show and the other comes prepared with facts and expects to have a civil discussion.
2. We’re at a hideous disadvantage. The other guys get to talk in bumper stickers and tell people things they want to hear (”don’t worry about CO2, it’s all a bunch of foo foo”), while we have to explain at least some of the underlying science to a mainstream that has very few scientists. (Even worse is the “dentist problem” that Michael Tobis has identified, the people with some training in science or a related field who insist on being “independent thinkers” and denying the evidence.)
They repeat their tired old nonsense for the 9,000th time, and swarm one web site after another.”
…’an independent description of what is happening’…
NOAA says if El Nino continues to mature, as now projected, ‘global temperatures are likely to exceed previous record highs.’
In reality, El Nino has stalled in its tracks, yet the warmists are still hopeful of renewed warming. The Trade Winds are weakening, which should help their cause, but with a blank sun and cold PDO I don’t fancy their chances.
Those shonky models cannot be relied upon.
While the answer to “what is good” may be what allows organisms to flourish, the answer to the climate change debate is an unsolvable conundrum that lies between the precautionary principle and what science reveals. Until such time as the mysteries of the universe are unraveled, the climate debate will divide humanity along lines that are political, spiritual, moral, or lucrative. The fear of the unknown is like a black hole at the center of our galaxy, consuming all who venture too close.
“Today there is a tendency to lament the politicization of climate change research and to pretend that other researchers have an underlying agenda while you pride yourself on being firmly based on the objective foundation of science. But we all have an agenda, and the debating climate will gain by us recognising this”, says Mickey Gjerris.
So, “we all have an agenda”, eh? It ‘s always humorous to see a relativist try to argue against the possibility of objectivity by then making objective statements about the rest of the World – and especially by projecting his own disdain for or fear of the Scientific Method upon the rest of the people in the whole World, who all “have agendas”, when, as he admitted up front, he is actually only talking about himself and his own agenda, which seems to be to disparage or disprove the validity of the Scientific Method as a way to determine facts and that, ergo, politicization of Science is also a-ok.
It’s also humorous to see an “ethicist” say he is going to talk about the ethics of a situation, then suddenly postulate his own particular ethical rules from which there can be no deviation.
FatBigot (20:20:59)
Gee, FB, sorry I missed your blog prior to this; you really ought to keep writing. I must, however, take exception to your description of sociology. Try not to confuse the mob of agenda-driven fanatics with the discipline: there are in fact a large number of sociologists who make the attempt to understand society and social systems BEFORE suggesting schemes to change it. What is really odd is that the agendists (hmmmph, is there such a word?) who are hell-bent on Statist solutions have their origins in sociological schools of thought that were opposed to everything their descendants now stand for.
It would be wrong to jettison science in general and climate science in particular because of the antics of Hansen, Mann and Schmidt. The same is true for Sociology. It is capable of explaining so much, including how and why climate science has been captured by anti-science fanatics.