I know this could degenerate quickly, so if the mods delete this OP, fine,

But this is a philosophy forum. By that I mean everything is examined and debated, stripped down, deconstructed and restructured. Everyone comes at a question from their own perspective. They quote their favourite philosopher or the one from which they built their own take on things and they address the world from a specific philosophical perspective.

This is the situation, as I see it, on climate change:

1). Climate change is real.

2). Climate change is man made

3). Climate change is natural

4). Climate change is not real

5). We need to act on Climate Change now otherwise it’s the end for us

6). We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human

world is restructured economically and socially

7). We don’t act and nothing changes

8). We don’t act and have to deal with virtual extinction

9). We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically

and socially

10). The trigger is warmer temperatures


In an article Wayfarer posted temperatures were projected as possibly 4 degrees higher than they are by the year 3000, which would set off all sorts of cataclysmic consequences. What is, for example using laws of probability, the chance of that happening, what are the odds, and what are the odds of other factors intervening in the meantime?

Everyone knows the science, everyone refers to it. But from a philosophical point of view what is, for instance, the chance of each one of these possibilities happening if you applied laws of probability, or ideas of existential relativity, ethics, Marxism, utilitarianism, or what Baudrillard calls “an excessive proliferation of meaning”, or any numbers of philosophies I know nothing about.

It seems very unusual to me that everyone would simply look at the situation and say, “The science is in” and think no more of it.

If you were asked to address the situation from your philosophical beliefs how would you talk about it? Would you address each one of the points, shouldn’t all thing be considered, and all things considered possible? Is there really only one way to look at this? It seems to me there should be something like 100 posts all different, each one coming from a different angle, each point addressed and valued in relation to the ideas applied to it.

If the OP stays I will, of course, put up my own post.

Edit: obviously my year 3000 figure is wrong. My poor maths.

Edit: the reference was a century from now.