Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 16:49 (23 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: he gave us life to handle. Dayenu.

dhw: I know what it means. And atheists and agnostics can say the same. What is it supposed to prove? We are all agreed that we have the gift of life If that is enough, why are you so keen to prove the existence of God, and to convince yourself and us that we and our food were his one and only goal? I would like to think that you and I and millions of others share a burning desire for knowledge, and even if we can never solve all the mysteries, it is an admirable trait of us humans that we never give up the search.

I'm just a little surprised that you have not deigned to comment.

Agreement is obvious.

dhw: I’m delighted that you agree with Musk that “climate change risk is real”, and that you acknowledge the damage being done by current practices, and are in favour of balanced measures to prevent further escalation. We both condemn silly exaggerations aimed at creating panic. We even agree that without international cooperation, the Paris Agreement is toothless, and I expect you too are dismayed by the obvious truths in Hossenfelder’s analysis. In fact our only disagreement here is on the role being played by Trump, who is now playing a central role in ensuring that Hossenfelder’s prophecy will come true.

DAVID: How real is the risk is still theoretical. My concept of it is much smaller than yours.

dhw: You have agreed with me and with Musk that the dangers are real, not “theoretical”! Pollution, deforesting etc. are happening now. You are proud of the steps being taken in your country to reduce carbon emissions. And we agree that there has to be a balanced approach. Dayenu!

The actual climate reality:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/11/most-countries-miss-un-deadline-for-new-climate-...

The nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris Agreement faced a Monday deadline to submit new national climate plans to the U.N., setting out how they plan to cut emissions by 2035.

As of Monday morning, many of the world’s biggest polluters – including China, India and the European Union – had not done so.

“The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5 degrees Celsius for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance,” said Bill Hare, CEO of science and policy institute Climate Analytics.

As we know, some countries who have submitted new plans, such as Brazil and Mexico have actually reduced their ambitions.

It is yet more evidence that most of the world does not see climate change as a threat.

Comment: once again I would remind: climate models are multifactorial estimates and not terribly accurate.