View Full Version : Dalai Lama Endorses Global Climate Strike

28 Sep 19, 11:15
From the Buddhist Door website: "Dalai Lama Endorses Global Climate Strike"


Any comments about the article?


28 Sep 19, 18:35
Well, I’m glad more people are taking climate change more seriously. Here in North America we have one political party who chose not to believe in it, because it’s not in their best interests. I’m glad that’s changing, although very slowly.
I am very happy to see the younger generation starting to organize. This will be a very critical issue for them.
I hope for the best.


28 Sep 19, 23:30
Honestly, I see little point based upon past experience even discussing this topic online as ignorance on the parts of most humans with regard to the complexity of all facets of this issue is startling. :(

I am happy that HHDL and The Roman Catholic Pope Francis are both encouraging the next few generations to get engaged and to pay attention to what has been and is being learned. Hopefully this will encourage participation and study of "The Science of Earth's Climate and Ecology" including the effects brought to force by anthropogenic contributions, but not ignoring all the other natural environmental and ecological inputs and outputs contributing to all natural cycles known, and those still yet to be discovered.

I would encourage anyone on this board, who wishes to learn and contribute to this worthy effort and become aware through earnest study of natural and human contributions having even the most minor effects beneficially and there upon and there after to stay current with existing studies and data and be willing to compassionately and without all forms of impatience or derision to share what they learn with the vast seas of the ignorant and deluded rather than debate and demonstrate in any manner which causes harm in the same spirit and intention of what Christ was reported to speak upon the cross during the process of his execution.: "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do!":hands:

IMHO, A good place to begin if interested is here: :reading:


30 Sep 19, 20:34
Well, I’m glad more people are taking climate change more seriously

Hi Mike,

Earlier this month, thousands of people in cities across the UK protested about climate change.


Various religious faith based climate change groups also joined in:



01 Oct 19, 01:01
Aloka, Thanks for the links’s. I was so glad to see them!


06 Oct 19, 18:11
Since my brother-in-law is a physicist specializing in piezoelectrics, and also a climate change / global warming "skeptic" we often discuss those issues from time to time. Here was his latest response for which I asked permission to share here:

Peter Madaffari <plmadaff@hotmail.com>
Sat 10/5/2019 13:05

I think in my 4th paragraph for my first response to your email I said the following:

It is not very difficult or very useful to come up with a theory (that) meets past data. You just need enough variables and a multivariate linear regression to give coefficients to each variable. The test of the theory is: does it predict the future and if so how well? From what I have seen of current theories is they don’t seem to make very accurate predictions. By that I mean the predictions predict changes that are twice or more greater than the actual result. In fact, they are all to the high side, which by probability should not occur, unless there was some bias in formulating the theory. To me, the consensus opinion appears to be based on an incomplete theory. As a physicist and engineer, I am well aware of consensus opinions that were only proven wrong or at best incomplete when the then current leading scientists died out and a new generation took over.

At that time I did not post a link then to data supported that claim. Here is one such link:

On Models vs Actual Measurements


Here is also a link to some facts about the 97% consensus that is supposed to exist from the early 2000’s:

On Consensus


Here is the final link. It is a discussion on CO2 with Freeman Dyson. There is a whole Star Trek the Next Generation episode based on his idea of the Dyson Sphere:


Hope you find them interesting.

Best regards,


From: Ronald J. Chiodi <rjchiodi@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Peter Madaffari <plmadaff@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: HHDL and Francis Too! re. Global Warming and/or Climate Change

Hi, Pete.

Thanks for the "very" thoughtful response. Fission and fusion are often overlooked by the "carbon-free" community, but fission is the driving process for the radiation which drives all photovoltaic processes here on Earth.

With your permission, I would like to share your summary and observations with my Buddhist Climate Change Activists. It will give them other focus for their meditations regarding the topic.

Won't act until permission is given. This will prevent them from conducting "Planet Preservation" demonstrations on your front lawn. ( just kidding! )

HHDL is "not" a religious activist when it comes to climate change. Can't say the same for Pope Francis. HHDL advised long ago that if Science finds that common sense needs to be changed, we should all be willing to do so in the name of scientific factual discovery. That has been the way of Buddhism since it was discovered that knives were sharp and that boiling pots are hot.


06 Oct 19, 23:09
It's interesting to hear from a climate change / global warming "skeptic", as most of the opinions I get are from "believers".

I looked at the links provided by Mr Madaffari in the quoted correspondence, and most of all I was saddened to see how, in the USA, the question of climate change has been reframed into a political issue.

As I understand it, Democrats are accused by Republicans of falsely claiming that the world is warming up as a result of human activity. Republicans promote the freedom to allow markets and economics to determine human activity.

Once an issue separates into two polarised and opposing camps, negotiation becomes futile, progress towards a consensus becomes blocked. In the UK we have a recent example of that in the disagreement over leaving the European Union.

Now that polarisation has split the question of climate change into two groups, the skeptics only read material that confirms their view, and the believers only read material that confirms their view.

That's why I find it interesting to hear from a skeptic. I've got no answers and I can't draw any conclusions. I'm just going to make brief comments on two of the speeches from the links provided by Mr Madaffari.

Models vs Actual Measurements deals with tropospheric temperature measurements. Temperatures are rising but only at half the rate predicted by an average of 102 different climate models. The rate of temperature rise is 0.13 degC per decade. The speaker discards the models for their inaccuracy, and by implication discards the message that world temperatures are rising. He also discards surface temperature as difficult to measure. In fact figures for surface temperatures are readily available and they also show a steady or accelerating increase.

On Consensus, I would only make the point that science is based on observation and measurement of repeatable results. Theories are only proved when a predicted result is confirmed by observation and measurement. Until a theory is proved, there always has been discussion and debate. That's how science makes progress. The fact that there is not a universal consensus does not mean climate change science is discredited.

The fact is that the world is getting steadily hotter. Polar ice is melting in the summer faster than it freezes in the winter. There will be permanent and far-reaching effects resulting from the change in our climate. For the sake of future generations, we have to wake up to the situation. It's far too important to be kicked about like a political football.

07 Oct 19, 12:57
I agree with Woodscooter. There are facts and one of them is the global warming. The effects of this are putting humankind in risk, ecosystems in risk and we are facing a massive extinction if we do not do something.

09 Oct 19, 01:20
There are facts and one of them is the global warming.

As stated previously, there is little point in debating the point, because "believers" do not listen or study "the facts", they just believe. Anthropogenic sources are at best contributions to Global Warming, but there are many, many more natural causes, which have yet to be quantified and modeled as P. Madaffari pointed out. For example the contribution of water vapor due to Earth's global water cycle. Water vapor is rarely mentioned, mostly CO2, and recently methane due to melting of methane clathrate from the ocean's bottom and the melting tundra.

Recently active volcanoes have been discovered adding not only to methane clathrate melting, but accelerating the melting of glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Also, there are accession and recessions of our solar system within our galaxy, which increases and decreases both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation from surrounding stars and other celestial bodies.

In fact there are so many as yet poorly understood natural sources, that they provide physicists with enough to study for 100s of generations. Nothing new, But believers don't care to inquire, because I think it hurts their heads.


09 Oct 19, 07:49
As stated previously, there is little point in debating the point, because "believers" do not listen or study "the facts", they just believe.

...believers don't care to inquire, because I think it hurts their heads.

Please keep the conversation free from negative remarks about people who are seriously concerned about climate change, Ron,.....and by implication, members of this forum, such as myself and others posting in this topic. It's completely unnecessary and lowers the tone of a discussion. (See Code of Conduct).

Moving on, here are some links for our members to browse in connection with climate change:



https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/environmental-damage/?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_DsBRBPEiwAIEDRW1WRb7R2fwKcWruRReF 70oguPwelmfU2DHfeM0Ai03pm2W5EHVE

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_DsBRBPEiwAIEDRW19ZVaIqfi0GGP1PDcF 639bCsd61mhFNbq72gunXKFygluYEcYS_1BoCPCIQAvD_BwE

https://eia-international.org/climate/?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_DsBRBPEiwAIEDRW1rIQ8P6o69bkOMOQzn l5GqCfbP4aApBNB2PCl7Bt3qW-KDP1rupORoCaIUQAvD_BwE



09 Oct 19, 13:51
Thank you for the advisory/ reminder re. Code of conduct. Please feel free to delete any offensive comments on my part.

09 Oct 19, 23:34
Does The Earth get warmer due to the addition of tons of dust / rubble from outer space?

I spent some time today contemplating this idea, since getting involved in a discussion about natural reasons for Global Warming. I reasoned from my awareness of the Pressure Equation for ideal gasses (PV=NRT) as an approximation, that as The Earth Gained mass it should increase in temperature. An algebraic rearrangement of the equation yields: T=PV/NR, where T is temperature in degrees Kelvin, P is pressure in atmospheres, V is volume, N is the amount of mass in moles, and R is the Ideal Gas Constant= (0.0821 Liter Atmospheres / Mole degree Kelvin).

If this were the only factor to consider: As N increases, T should increase as well. Therefore The Earth's temperature should increase as mass falls through our atmosphere at the rate of 40,000 metric tonnes per year.

What is wrong with this theory, is that Earth loses approximately 50,000 metric tonnes of mass per year as well. So, by this logic, we should be getting cooler, not warmer.

source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/297622/is-the-earth-gaining-or-losing-mass-over-time

Then there's this:

Mass regain from atmo regain And neutron absorption (and other single atoms) as a direct result from solar radiation..

The atmo regain is part of the atmo loss when the atmo particles fall back to Earth again, if they didn't have enough initial speed under a certain vector to leave the earth's gravity.

the neutron and proton radiation also adds weight.. As part of the sun's radiation, they get blasted towards earth as well.. Most of them that hit the earth's magnetosphere get deflected.. But not all..which are the neutrons mostly.. Natural background radiation.. neutron's get absorbed into earths large mass And also a few proton's here and there..

Then there's another thing, natural proton annihilation, decaying into energy, and I think there's neutron decay as well, also into energy..

So..is the earth gaining weight or losing it ? I think it's gaining weight, contrary to popular belief.. (the atmo loss calculations are off since atmo regain wasn't calculated in..) Also, if the atmo had been losing out on that much for 2B years, it would be atmo-less now..(or at least significantly less..) (since the top part is mostly H, and still exists..)

The highest layer is H mostly, and therefore would be hit the hardest, and therefore the most to escape.. However 2B years of de-hydrogenisation @ 50 Kilotonnes/year.. - slowly counts.. 100 Teratonnes of H loss..

So, I guess that would make the H layer either really thin, or negatively non-existent.. (unless someone says the total tonnage of H in the upper layer >100 teratonnes..I didn't bother to look it up..)

Also, over time the magnetosphere increased in strength, while in the beginning it was relatively weak.. As the Earth grew more dense, and the metal layers started shifting in height,and moved in a circular fashion, and cooled down, decreasing the average distance between particles (through compression etc) it became closer and closer to what it is today.. I think measuring it's strength would yield interesting results.. (or rather the change in it..) As the magnetospehere increased in strength, so did the protection against solar radiation for Earth and once the solar winds couldn't touch much of the planet's atmo anymore it stabilized.. Although atmo loss occurs, it also falls back..

Also, any (micro)meteors that hit earth's surface or lower atmo, keep adding stuff that never leaves..the solar winds can't blast it enough to make it escape..

the only thing we have to worry about is the earth's core getting too solid, in which case the magnetosphere's strength goes down again, and umm..well general badness.. (hence me suggesting checking the strength of the magnetosphere.)

09 Oct 19, 23:48
Scientists discover 91 additional volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet:


Volcanoes warming Arctic Ice sheets and oceans:


12 Oct 19, 14:37
I think that a lot of what needs to be said is already being expressed by David Attenborough in this video (which I've added here from a separate topic).

After that, its up to those governments from around the world who haven't yet started introducing vital measures of one kind or another to slow climate change, to start seriously addressing them ASAP before its too late.


May all sentient beings be free from suffering and its causes, both now and in the future.