Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation has published a gem of an article, aimed at people suffering climate “guilt”, to help them philosophically come to terms with the fact that they are experiencing emotional distress, about events which haven’t happened
According to The Conversation;
Do you suffer from climate guilt? A dose of philosophy can help
People cannot engage in something they cannot see or feel. We need concrete reasons to care and act. In this way, climate change presents a threefold intangible challenge:
1. we can perceive the weather, but the climate system is something rather abstract, a statistical construct
2. we now know climate change is anthropogenic, or man-made, but how can we understand this? One way is to say: mankind is the reason, but this becomes also very abstract. Who actually is represented with mankind? Another way is to say: China or the US is to blame, as if we are speaking of subjects and not concepts. We cannot grasp how you and I contribute to climate change, not by doing something extraordinary, but with our everyday lives
3. we cannot perceive how we as individuals can contribute to mitigating climate change. Eighteenth-century philosopher George Berkeley stated that “To be is to be perceived.” If we can’t see the change in the climate system, nor the reason why it is actually occurring, does it exist in our daily lives?
My favourite takeaway soundbite is the following;
… Furthermore, climate is not here and now. Its only possible way to be perceived is through recognition of patterns, by computer modeling and, most importantly, through representations. …
The author of this article is Luis Fernández Carril, Faculty member at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If only computers can see climate change, then perhaps climate change is only happening inside computers?
It takes common sense to be skeptical of climate change. Whatever it takes to believe in it no mater what the evidence is not the philosophy I know. Whatever it is Im glad I dont have it.
Little correction to Carill’s bloviation:
I’ll be happy to help him with the answer. $150 per hour, minimum 5 hours, bring you own couch.
Sounds like a backdoor, psychobabble way to explain away the public’s lack of interest in CAGW.
“If you don’t feel guilty about what we claim is a problem that you caused then you have a psychological problem. Let us explain why you don’t feel guilty about but should. ”
Or maybe I missed something. (Wouldn’t be the first time.)
TYPO!
“Let us explain why you don’t feel guilty about but should. ”
Should be
“Let us explain why you don’t feel guilty but should. ”
So I’m supposed to adopt a philosophy that climate change will bring fast warming any time now, right?
More than that, the menace that lurks out of sight somewhere is all our fault, for having implemented the most logical employment of available resources and technology to bring affluence to mankind.
nope…
How about a philosophy which puts guilt on those who seek to use science, politics and fear to prevent the development of the remaining world (and the eventuality of a reverse in world population), while destroying the industrialized world in the process, all as a ‘precaution which might stop climate change’?
“Climate change” is something you don’t see, but rather feel. The ability to summon tears at a moment’s notice is certainly asset.
The AGW crowd need to feel guilt because they have have given up on “outmoded ” morality in their private lives and without a guilt which they can impute to the actions of others, they cannot retain their feelings of superiority. For matters to do with writing of scriptures consult those who wrote them What about the Orthodox Church who tell you easily . There are many sites in English since there are many Orthodox Christians in N America where I assume most of contributors live. ( hint) Look up Sola Scriptura
I’m too old to change my ways so I’ll just have to keep doing what I’ve always done and that is to stick my head out of the window.
I’m ROFL, because while indeed a bad philosophy can lead you to see what is not there and especially to blame humans, that’s what is behind the climate alarmism they assume as the starting point for their rationalizaiton.
Certainly it takes conceptual understanding to grasp higher-order abstractions, but one has to start with a solid foundation at the lower level where reality can be recognized relatively easily. John Ridpath points out that those who follow the Platonist approach don’t start with that foundation, so go hopelessly wrong. But after many years of using the wrong approach to knowledge, they don’t know how to do anything else so keep trying – and because their approach is based on feeling (emotions) they get angry when not succeeding.
“we now know that climate change is anthroprogenic….”
IOW, they start with a conclusion, thus their entire effort is rationalization, of a type similar to what we’ve seen many times.
And I’m laughing at the point that city dwellers don’t experience nature – that’s true, it’s why so many are suckers for claims of eco-activists (for example, claims that deer are in cities in BC because all their habitat has been cut down).