Climate Change - countering the sceptics.

[mark black]

Nickolai,

Consumer choice is secondary to the decisions producers make, and the rationale for the consumer is to get what they need/want at the lowest price - not at the highest ethical standard.

Even if consumer soveriegnty were an effective mechanism, the burden of knowledge and responsibility you would place on the consumer is unrealistic - and particularly so where profit and cost is at issue.

The producer will lie, and the consumer will buy the cheaper option - and fuck the climate, child labour, or whatever it may be, because the highest value in capitalism is the almighty dollar. Yes, the consumer is complicit, but ignorant, and content to be ignorant.

Even if the producer made all the information available it wouldn't work - because consumers don't have the time, knowledge and willingness to evaluate the information for every little thing they buy.

But it isn't an effective mechanism because the consumer only gets to choose amongst that which is produced - and that which is produced is produced at the lowest cost - and fuck the climate, child labour or whatever.

You say:

The profit, nor consumption through profit, doesn't have to be in material resources

How do you propose to feed, clothe and house people with non-material resources?

mark.

[Nikolai]

the rationale for the consumer is to get what they need/want at the lowest price - not at the highest ethical standard.

Not true. Ethical standards is a good example of a value that can be attached to a commodity even within a capitalist system. In my family we pay a premium for organic fairly traded food that is locally grown, my bank account offers lower interest rates but invests ethically, my clothes are more expensive, less stylish but made without chemicals.

And we are far from alone. The above industries are experiencing incredible growth purely because huge portions of society are wanting ethical products and the market is responding to them. Tesco, that bastion of capitalism, is enlarging its Organic range at a phenomenal rate. Why? Because thats what the consumer wants, and because the consumer wants it Tesco can increase the margins on ethical products. Its a win - win.

How do you propose to feed, clothe and house people with non-material resources?

I've given some imaginative responses to this in the other thread. In a nutshell, a non-materialistic capitalist economy would be placing such a premium on spiritual values that the commodities you mention would become devalued and start to resemble utilities, like refuse collection or sewerage.

[Diomedes71]

Hi Mark

I have a question or two.
It has been a lot warmer in the past, right? Cyclically so, and so can be expected, irrispective of whether the current warming is man made or not, to get warmer in the future? As demonstrated by Ice core data.

Are you not going to be wasting your time if you ever to fight this natural process.

The polar bears have survived in the past, mass extinctions have happened, more species than exist today have been totally anialated without mans efforts.
So I put it to you, if you weigh up the economic consequences of restrainig globalisation - mainly continued poverty and starvation. I put it to you, a - you don't have evidence to be so sure current warming is man made, b - even if it was it wouldn't be so bad as we could manage it, even reverse it technologically some time in the future c - the human immediate costs are to great, if it was you who didn't know where your childs next meal was comming from you might think different.


Regards

[mark black]

diomedes,

There are natural processes that have warmed the earth in the past but I think there are few so rapid, and with the particular dynamics of anthropogenic effects. Not only are we burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate but engaging in large scale deforestation and land clearance. Also, we are relasing compunds into the environment not known to nature, like CFC's that caused all that hoo-ha aboout ozone depletion. Further we are pouring millions of tons of nitrate into the oceans causing algea to bloom, absorbing heat and warming the oceans, releasing massive quantities of co2 and methane into the atmosphere when it dies and rots. I don't know the overall effect, but the point is, much of this is unecessary.

to address your three points:

a - you don't have evidence to be so sure current warming is man made,

the majority of scientists now believe they have sufficient evidence of the anthorpogenic element to global warming.

b - even if it was it wouldn't be so bad as we could manage it, even reverse it technologically some time in the future

with 7 billion people on earth, all aspiring to high energy lifestyles, this is a question that needs addressing. we have no idea how bad this could get. if the climate becomes unblanaced we could end up with a snowball earth or fried to a crisp.

c - the human immediate costs are to great, if it was you who didn't know where your childs next meal was comming from you might think different.

The immediate human costs are too great for what? To address climate change? the ultimate cost could be the extinction of humankind. Professor James Lovelock thinks that billions of people will die before then end of this century and the only place left habitable will be the North Pole. How's that for human costs?

[Arising_uk]

...the only place left habitable will be the North Pole...

We better be bloody good swimmers then.

[Diomedes71]

Hi Mark,

Here's the game.
America until relatively recently ignored and denied the man made global warming hypothesis.
Credit crunch aside, and it's impending impact, the BRIC economies have been raising hundreds of millions out of poverty year in year out for a while now.
China's economy, and therefore wealth, power and influence in the world, is predicted to be challenging the U.S. in a relatively short amount of time.
A FACT.. In a globalised economy, pay for unskilled work will tend toward somewhere between the current lowest paid workers in the world and that of the rich developed nations. Tending closer to the lower end of the scale!
This fact is what drives protectionism and keeps people starving. Trade addresses this problem. World regulation and trade agreements can address problems. (child labour, women’s oppression etc). Lay people like to talk morals but when it comes to threats to there standard of living they are too often deaf to the plights of other. They abhor the idea of abiding by a Larger regional law, they believe they are special, because plopped out of their mothers vagina on a special piece of land.. they are special. They are more deserving.

The US, UK, Europe are using(would like to) global warming as a vehicle to regulate and slow down China's (BRICs) growth to protect western life styles.
This is why America has changed it's tune. The logic and arguments against 'panic' measures have not changed. I am prepared to concede that global warming is occuring at a faster rate than otherwise might be. Even though I am not convinced of it. It doesn't alter my arguments that it's priority and seriousness falls below many others. Especially given that it is not proven, those that agree with it have large self interest in the ideas proliferation. For example, I heard it said, if you want a grant to study Frogs, in the old days you may or may not have got your money, now you can considerably improve your chances of getting the grant by saying you want to 'study the effects of global warming on Frogs'.

So my contention that global warming is a lower ranked world priority is based on the following.

Priorities
1 - Feed people - use market economies and free trade.
2 - Address inhuman treatment of people through political and trade pressures. ( Child labour, Women oppression) 50%(ish) of the entire Muslim world suffer severe restrictions on freedom, they have a subservient place in society)
3 - Look after the planet and it's other animal inhabitants.
4 -Attempt to improve quality of life generally.

Priority 3 can often become entangled with 1 and 2, non the less it fundamentally is of less importance on any short to medium scale say 1 to 200 years.

Inhibiting factors for the importance of Global warming.(not in order)
1 - Unproven
2 - The world is certain to get warmer anyway.. species must adapt, as in the past
3 - There are technological fixes, more and better technological fixes will come as the problem, IF the problem appears to become significant.
4 - Any serious attempt to reduce global carbon footprint asks ' A Big Ask' of less developed nations to restrain there growth... Live on in poverty.
5 - Oil monopoly by the Arab nations will reduce as we pioneer other fuel as a result of dwindling supply of readily available oil.
6 - Currently under construction in France is proto-type Fusion neuclear generator. They achieved economic outputs from experimental unit, after the first industrial scale model is built and near perfected I predict this to become the dominant supply of energy to the world.
7 - Wind power is a waste of time. Sometimes it's not windy.
8 - Solar and other methods are unsightly and not so efficient as conventional means - and not better than the nuclear option ( Fusion or Fission)
9 - Majority of those touting G.W. have vested interests.. It is now an industry and lobbies as effectively as the large Conglomerates.

There are natural processes that have warmed the earth in the past but I think there are few so rapid

Given my reasons and thinking above I would say you need to KNOW, not 'think'. I am glad you recognise the fact that it has been warmer in the past. I believe the the ice core data is largely uncontested.

I don't know the overall effect, but the point is, much of this is unnecessary

I am afraid as I have just said to tout something with such far reaching implications you need to be pretty sure about the 'overall effect'. You need a better argument than 'it's unnecessary', you need to be bloody sure it's catastrophic to ask others to consign themselves to poverty and hunger and remain without all the luxuries you enjoy.

the majority of scientists now believe they have sufficient evidence of the anthropogenic element to global warming.

Sufficient evidence, what is sufficient, sufficient to keep them on the panel of experts earning 150K, sufficient to justify a government grant for another report of study.
Deception, when you see it, shoot the b*std, Algore shows a graph and tries to convince people of the relation between CO2 and Temp, What is agreed from ice data is that CO2 (in this graph) is LAGGING temperature rise, so this graph CANNOT show a causal effect. Because of the scaling effect this in this graph it is not readily apparent that it lagging, but it is, by many hundred?, thousands? millions?, I can't remember but it certainly is unquestionably significant.

with 7 billion people on earth, all aspiring to high energy lifestyles, this is a question that needs addressing. we have no idea how bad this could get. if the climate becomes unbalanced we could end up with a snowball earth or fried to a crisp.

Why choose G.W. to get all et- up about? How about if Yellow stone national park erupted blacking the skies, how about if a comet struck, how about if virus evolved with high death rate but long incubation and Air born......... We're F*cked.
By the time these dire consequences could occur we would be able to reverse the process, hell sequence the genome in less than 10yrs when they said it would take a hundred, we can grow heart's in pigs for ourselves, in the next 1000 years we will be making Worlds not destroying.

The immediate human costs are too great for what? To address climate change?

see all before

the ultimate cost could be the extinction of humankind. Professor James Lovelock thinks that billions of people will die before then end of this century and the only place left habitable will be the North Pole. How's that for human costs?

see all before.

Regards

[mark black]

Diomedes71,

Wow, I disagree with just about everything you say, and that's unusual in itself.

BRIC? It's like the start of a joke - what do Brazil, Russia, India and China have in common. (Supply your own punchlines.) That they've been raisng hundreds of million out of poverty?? I don't get it.

A FACT.. In a globalised economy, pay for unskilled work will tend toward somewhere between the current lowest paid workers in the world and that of the rich developed nations. Tending closer to the lower end of the scale!

You wrongly emphasise this fact to suggest this is what drives protectionism - largely because capital is free to move around the world, and does so. Take coca-cola in Brazil, or Nike in China. Companies migrate to ease thier labour costs and tax burdens.

Trade addresses this problem.

This is trade, outsourcing is trade, CPZ's are trade, burning the rainforest to farm cattle and plant biofuel crops for export to America is trade.

World regulation and trade agreements can address problems. (child labour, women’s oppression etc).

But they don't. See FTAA.

The US, UK, Europe are using(would like to) global warming as a vehicle to regulate and slow down China's (BRICs) growth to protect western life styles.

So, it's all a big lie? I don't think so.

This is why America has changed it's tune.

They've joined the evil conspiracy to protect rainforests and move toward better energy technologies???

I am prepared to concede that global warming is occuring at a faster rate than otherwise might be. Even though I am not convinced of it.

That's big of you. What if you're opinion is wrong? What if it's as serious as scientists who've studied this question since the 1950's, now largely agree that it is?

Especially given that it is not proven,

This statment demonstartes a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem, and/or the nature of scientific knowledge. It will never be proven in the way that you are asking. It's a meta-phenomenon with a huge number of inputs and outputs. Science is always looking for more evidence, but the majority of the evidence is now pointing toward man-made climate change. It was Bush's tactic in the early years of his administration to demand PROOF - and anyone who knows a damn thing knows that's just stupid.

You continue on the point in the latter half of the post:

There are natural processes that have warmed the earth in the past but I think there are few so rapid

Given my reasons and thinking above I would say you need to KNOW, not 'think'. I am glad you recognise the fact that it has been warmer in the past. I believe the the ice core data is largely uncontested.

(yes, it shows a broad correlation between global temperature rises and mass extinctions in the Jurassic and Permian–Triassic.)

and again:

I don't know the overall effect, but the point is, much of this is unnecessary

I am afraid as I have just said to tout something with such far reaching implications you need to be pretty sure about the 'overall effect'. You need a better argument than 'it's unnecessary', you need to be bloody sure it's catastrophic to ask others to consign themselves to poverty and hunger and remain without all the luxuries you enjoy.

But that's wrong because on the one hand such certainty is not possible and on the other hand the scientific case is for reform of rich societies and the sustainable development of developing nations - not continued poverty.

those that agree with it have large self interest in the ideas proliferation.

I agree that there are economic interests skewing the science, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to point to scientists grants when the oil companies formed a focus group to undermine the scientific case - and spent tens of millions of dollars commissioning pseudo-research, lobbying government, making television adverts and so on.

Why choose G.W. to get all et- up about? How about if Yellow stone national park erupted blacking the skies, how about if a comet struck, how about if virus evolved with high death rate but long incubation and Air born.........

I suppose it's possible that a suprvolcano will erupt or the earth will get hit by a comet and kill us all - in that case, why care about anything? Why have laws, jobs, why have children? It's all pointless...

No. Climate change is our doing and presents us with an opportunity to move forward by overcoming this problem. Equally, if climate change kills us it will be our failure - our fault, and for me that's not acceptable. A legitimate government should at the very least seek to ensure the continued viability of life...and there's a strong relation between the fact they don't and the poverty and injutice in the world around us.

[Diomedes71]

Hi Mark,

Here's the game.
D71
America until relatively recently ignored and denied the man made global warming hypothesis.

**********************Mark has no comment.
D71
Proposition raising the question why has America for so long refuted this great crisis and now suddenly about turned. About which I later offer possible explanation which seems cogent to me. This point needs addressing if my conclusions are to be challenged.

D71
Credit crunch aside, and it's impending impact, the BRIC economies have been raising hundreds of millions out of poverty year in year out for a while now.
Mark

BRIC? It's like the start of a joke - what do Brazil, Russia, India and China have in common. (Supply your own punchlines.) That they've been raising

D71
It is a proposition and a premise to my argument, there is nothing for you to get! You can either affirm or deny it, in the later case I would expect you to state clearly the ground.

D71
China's economy, and therefore wealth, power and influence in the world, is predicted to be challenging the U.S. in a relatively short amount of time.

***********************Mark has no comment.
D71
It is also premise to my arguments cogency and deserves comment. America appears to be concerned about external threats, often rightly so, but not rightly so it states that it wants to defend it’s ‘way of life’. This implies to me that if other ideologies where to grow and compete with it’s, it would be hostile.

D71
A FACT.. In a globalised economy, pay for unskilled work will tend toward somewhere between the current lowest paid workers in the world and that of the rich developed nations. Tending to the lower end of the scale.
Mark

You wrongly emphasise this fact to suggest this is what drives protectionism - largely because capital is free to move around the world, and does so. Take coca-cola in Brazil, or Nike in China. Companies migrate to ease thier labour costs and tax burdens.

D71
You make two propositions
1 – Capital is free to move around the world
2 – Companies migrate to ease costs.
These propositions do not refute my premise that market forces (on labour) cause unskilled to move abroad which people object to, on the grounds that ‘its their job’.
I believe you fail to explain how exactly I have over emphasised this point. Even if I have you would need to suggest a more appropriate emphasis which could take it’s place. Key though is you do not refute this FACT merely state that i have the emphasis wrong! thus we agree somewhat.

D71
This fact is what drives protectionism and keeps people starving.
Mark
Possibly contested above to a degree - but dealt with.
D71
This proposition states that protectionism obstructs markets and trade which keeps nations impoverished. This assertion you have not dealt with.

D71
Trade addresses this problem.
Mark

This is trade, outsourcing is trade, CPZ's are trade, burning the rainforest to farm cattle and plant biofuel crops for export to America is trade.

D71
If you wish to contest my conclusions you need to be more thorough in examining my premises. Here you make yet another assertion of your own which neither refutes or accedes to my proposition. I would be delighted to handle all the propositions and conclusions you have, but it is incorrect to sprinkle them through an attempted rebuttal of my argument which doesn’t rest on any one point but on an overall weight of doubts and reasons to be cautious.

D71
World regulation and trade agreements can address problems.(child labour, women’s oppression etc).
Mark

But they don't. See FTAA.

D71
Indeed they don’t do what they could, partially because of vested interests, partially because (take us here in the UK) we fear external regulation, I point I allude to later. But had you taken a stance on much of what I have said before and seen the central argument of mine being this: Feeding people now – is more important than something which is disputed, has many vested interest, there exists fixes, there will be more fixes. If you could bring yourself to see my thrust then you would understand that –
This single fact
Mark

But they don't. See FTAA.

D71
Is the biggest priority for the world and not G.M. which policies of carbon footprint reduction for would severely inhibit there economic development.

D71
Lay people like to talk morals but when it comes to threats to there standard of living they are too often deaf to the plights of other. They abhor the idea of abiding by a Larger regional law, they believe they are special, because plopped out of their mothers vagina on a special piece of land.. they are special. They are more deserving.

**********************Mark No comment.
D71
You question my rationale behind motivations for protectionism. Here I explore a little more but you offer nothing in protest or agreement.

D71
The US, UK, Europe are using(would like to) global warming as a vehicle to regulate and slow down China's (BRICs) growth to protect western life styles.
Mark

So, it's all a big lie? I don't think so.

D71
You have already made light of my serious propositions without seriously addressing ‘joke/ punch lines’. Here you sound almost childish. You behave as though I put all the weight of my argument on this singular proposition. Which is patently absurd given the great length to which I have wrote.
I do need to add I was remise in not advocating the following.

D71 - FURTHER
I would like to add further to what I have already said, a further motivation to tout for western countries to limit their footprint is to reduce reliance on Arab Oil. This actually is not a bad thing. But when Western countries try to restrict needy developing countries growth and use G.M. as pretext.. This I object to.

D71
This is why America has changed it's tune.
Mark

They've joined the evil conspiracy to protect rainforests and move toward better energy technologies???

D71
By the use of the word ‘evil conspiracy’ here you are attempting to ‘Load’ your words with emotional evaluative meaning instead of just a descriptive reasons for the failure of my argument. So far you have in-effectually dealt with any of my premises and so cannot hope to demonstrate error in my conclusion. While some elements of what I am saying clearly require a conspiracy, the larger parts do not, namely the many different vested interests.

D71
The logic and arguments against 'panic' measures have not changed.

**************************Mark No reply
D71
I merely infer the question, what was America’s rationale before? What changed? I am of course offering some plausible reasons myself.

D71
I am prepared to concede that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than otherwise might be.
Mark

That's big of you. What if you're opinion is wrong? What if it's as serious as scientists who've studied this question since the 1950's, now largely agree that it is?

D71
Another childish quip, I am willing to concede the issue because I am arguing about what is to be done. I am advocating wise use of resources for ourselves but the understanding that poor nations must not be inhibited this. And as most agree efforts are totally futile without co-operation and participation by the BRICs, then the whole thing isn’t to be worried about because we should invest in technological fixes.(if we like)

D7
Even though I am not convinced of it. It doesn't alter my arguments that it's priority and seriousness falls below many others. Especially given that it is not proven,
Mark

This statment demonstartes a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem, and/or the nature of scientific knowledge. It will never be proven in the way that you are asking. It's a meta-phenomenon with a huge number of inputs and outputs. Science is always looking for more evidence, but the majority of the evidence is now pointing toward man-made climate change. It was Bush's tactic in the early years of his administration to demand PROOF - and anyone who knows a damn thing knows that's just stupid.

D71
Which way? Have I ‘clearly’ asked it to be proven? Not in the mathematical sense I assure you. No, in the Darwinian sense. I don’t believe your arguments have reached that level of certainty. In your first lines you say you disagree with just about everything I say, yet, fundamentally you confirm and agree that the world has been warmer in the past. Whilst the rate at which the earth maybe warming may be increased due to man, it may well be futile to resist the long term trend in warmth, which is due around now anyway. For this reason though the G.W. crew would have us restrain the growth and have nation poverty continue for much longer than it needs to.
Resulting to insults of stupidity does not help you to disprove my thesis.

D71
those that agree with it have large self interest in the ideas proliferation.
Mark

I agree that there are economic interests skewing the science, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to point to scientists grants when the oil companies formed a focus group to undermine the scientific case - and spent tens of millions of dollars commissioning pseudo-research, lobbying government, making television adverts and so on.

D71
We Agree again, so I am founded in my scepticism. Disingenuous, how so, your merely trying to change the subject with yet another assertion which does not challenge what I say.

D71
For example, I heard it said, if you want a grant to study Frogs, in the old days you may or may not have got your money, now you can considerably improve your chances of getting the grant by saying you want to 'study the effects of global warming on Frogs'.

Mark/ D71
Anecdote not needed as point conceded.

D71
So my contention that global warming is a lower ranked world priority is based on the following.

Priorities
1 - Feed people - use market economies and free trade.
2 - Address inhuman treatment of people through political and trade pressures. ( Child labour, Women oppression) 50%(ish) of the entire Muslim world suffer severe restrictions on freedom, they have a subservient place in society)
3 - Look after the planet and it's other animal inhabitants.
4 -Attempt to improve quality of life generally.

***************************Mark No response
D71
Priorities of humanity, degree’s of certainty and what can be done( i.e possibly we could technologically fix the problem, globalisation can feed people)
Thus I feel you needed to remark on these priorities in order to undermine my standing.


Priority 3 can often become entangled with 1 and 2, non the less it fundamentally is of less importance on any short to medium scale say 1 to 200 years.


D71
Inhibiting factors for the importance of Global warming.(not in order)
1 – Unproven
Mark – pedantic to insinuate that I meant a mathematical proof.
2 - The world is certain to get warmer anyway.. species must adapt, as in the past
Mark – conceded this point.
3 - There are technological fixes, more and better technological fixes will come as the problem, IF the problem appears to become significant.
Mark - nothing
4 - Any serious attempt to reduce global carbon footprint asks ' A Big Ask' of less developed nations to restrain there growth... Live on in poverty.
Mark - nothing
5 - Oil monopoly by the Arab nations will reduce as we pioneer other fuel as a result of dwindling supply of readily available oil.
Mark - nothing
6 - Currently under construction in France is proto-type Fusion neuclear generator. They achieved economic outputs from experimental unit, after the first industrial scale model is built and near perfected I predict this to become the dominant supply of energy to the world.
Mark - nothing
7 - Wind power is a waste of time. Sometimes it's not windy.
Mark - nothing
8 - Solar and other methods are unsightly and not so efficient as conventional means - and not better than the nuclear option ( Fusion or Fission)
Mark - nothing
9 - Majority of those touting G.W. have vested interests.. It is now an industry and lobbies as effectively as the large Conglomerates.
Mark – conceded

Mark
There are natural processes that have warmed the earth in the past but I think there are few so rapid.
D71
Given my reasons and thinking above I would say you need to KNOW, not 'think'. I am glad you recognise the fact that it has been warmer in the past. I believe the the ice core data is largely uncontested.
Mark

But that's wrong because on the one hand such certainty is not possible and on the other hand the scientific case is for reform of rich societies and the sustainable development of developing nations - not continued poverty.

D71
I am referring to your writing sounding rather blasé’ and ill informed when you say ‘I think’ bla bla bla.
Agreed, the need for reform of rich nations………..see we do agree. Again.
As for ‘sustainable development’, what is going to stop it? There are more than enough resources on the planet. It’s just the dooms day scenario’s put forward by G.W. fanatics that call for there growth to be tempered…RESULTING in people starving for longer than they need to.

Mark
I don't know the overall effect, but the point is, much of this is unnecessary
D71
I am afraid as I have just said to tout something with such far reaching implications you need to be pretty sure about the 'overall effect'. You need a better argument than 'it's unnecessary', you need to be bloody sure it's catastrophic to ask others to consign themselves to poverty and hunger and remain without all the luxuries you enjoy.
Mark – no comment

Mark
the majority of scientists now believe they have sufficient evidence of the anthropogenic element to global warming.
D71
Sufficient evidence, what is sufficient, sufficient to keep them on the panel of experts earning 150K, sufficient to justify a government grant for another report of study.
Deception, when you see it, shoot the b*std, Algore shows a graph and tries to convince people of the relation between CO2 and Temp, What is agreed from ice data is that CO2 (in this graph) is LAGGING temperature rise, so this graph CANNOT show a causal effect. Because of the scaling effect this in this graph it is not readily apparent that it lagging, but it is, by many hundred?, thousands? millions?, I can't remember but it certainly is unquestionably significant.
Mark
– no comment on this deception, though concedes the general appearance of the link between CO2, which is discovered to be unfounded upon further scrutiny.

Mark
with 7 billion people on earth, all aspiring to high energy lifestyles, this is a question that needs addressing. we have no idea how bad this could get. if the climate becomes unbalanced we could end up with a snowball earth or fried to a crisp.
D71
Why choose G.W. to get all et- up about? How about if Yellow stone national park erupted blacking the skies, how about if a comet struck, how about if virus evolved with high death rate but long incubation and Air born......... We're F*cked.
Mark

I suppose it's possible that a suprvolcano will erupt or the earth will get hit by a comet and kill us all - in that case, why care about anything? Why have laws, jobs, why have children? It's all pointless...

D71
My point is there are always people saying what might happen, we have to be very careful before consigning people to years more poverty than they where due by clamping down on there carbon emissions . Since you have not refuted any of my valid concerns or scientific optimism and for that matter the economic consequences I fail to see why you have such an emotional problem with my opinions. The only reason I can think is this has become dogma to you and you are emotionally attached to your opinions and are not hearing mine.

D71
By the time these dire consequences could occur we would be able to reverse the process, hell sequence the genome in less than 10yrs when they said it would take a hundred, we can grow heart's in pigs for ourselves, in the next 1000 years we will be making Worlds not destroying.

**************************Mark – nothing
D71
I display some scientific optimism throughout this thread which you have failed to engage with. Given the economic consequences I espouse you need to address what I propose to be an alternative to ‘panic’ measures.

Mark Conclusion
No. Climate change is our doing and presents us with an opportunity to move forward by overcoming this problem. Equally, if climate change kills us it will be our failure - our fault, and for me that's not acceptable. A legitimate government should at the very least seek to ensure the continued viability of life...and there's a strong relation between the fact they don't and the poverty and injutice in the world around us.
D71
You’ll have to do better than merely espouse this link, you will have to show how you arrived at this conclusion with appropriate propositions.

[mark black]

D71,

****************mark has no comment

[Diomedes71]

You took your time, I'd already figured that out for my self.

[mark black]

D71,

I made an intelligent reply to your hypothesis that it's all a big conspiracy to stymie the economic development of BRIC. If you want me to be more direct - it's bullshit. I've got books from the 1970's that suggest the global warming hypothesis - and the evidence for it has been steadily accumulating. It's taken this long to put the issue on the political agenda because it requires economic reform of our societies.

You say:

America until relatively recently ignored and denied the man made global warming hypothesis.

Bush changed his tune in 2005 because global warming was a public concern and Al Gore was his oponent in the presidential election. Al Gore forced Bush to about face on global warming - because Gore made it a public concern and Bush wanted the votes.

All this **********mark has no comment is pretty childish stuff. So what, if I don't respond to your every utterance? I addressed the overall argument. You can assume I have read an understood your argument unless otherwise stated. I simply don't agree.

Feeding people now – is more important than something which is disputed, has many vested interest, there exists fixes, there will be more fixes. If you could bring yourself to see my thrust then you would understand

I do understand. It's just that you're wrong.

Your wrong about the conspiracy, you're wrong in your approach to addressing inter-related threats to human existence - which in order of immanence are the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation.

You're wrong in your belief that the markets can sort this out - and it's such a tightly knit ball of wrongness I can't tell where the falsity begins so forgive me lacking the paitence to untangle the Gordian knot of your folly, and addressing it by cutting through the shit with Occam's razor.

Occam's razor states that if there are no grounds for assuming the existence of a thing it should not be assumed to exist - or, to put it another way, the simplest adequate explanation is the best.

Your consipracy theory requires me to make assumptions that are not necessary in order to explain the current situation: i.e. Bush changed his position on climate change because he joined some global conspiracy to undermine the BRIC economies. No.

It had become an issue of public concern at election time.

The simplest adequate explanation is the best.

[Arising_uk]

Hi MB,

...Your consipracy theory requires me to make assumptions that are not necessary in order to explain the current situation: i.e. Bush changed his position on climate change because he joined some global conspiracy to undermine the BRIC economies. No.

It had become an issue of public concern at election time.

The simplest adequate explanation is the best.

Or, at least one that confirms ones political stance that is. What is so absurd about the idea that "Bush changed his position on climate change because he joined some global conspiracy to undermine the BRIC economies"? Although I'll give that it would have been more in the "National Interest" that would have driven this change. I think you are naive to understand this as a response to a change in the US's 'mob' opinion.
a_uk

[Arising_uk]

...I've got books from the 1970's that suggest the global warming hypothesis - and the evidence for it has been steadily accumulating. It's taken this long to put the issue on the political agenda because it requires economic reform of our societies.

Agreed and those books just said that "Its getting warmer" and hazarded some guesses as to why. Now we know that we are making a significant contribution to a now confirmed on-going process, you are arguing that we should reduce this effort to 'save the Human Race'? Why this sounds odd is that this catastrophe probably won't cause the extinction of the Human Race. It may well cause the 'extinction' of the current crop of Cultures but extinguish the Human Race? Not sure. So what is it that you are trying to save?
a_uk

[Diomedes71]

Hi Mark,

It 'may' have been an intelligent reply but debate isn't merely trading opinions. If I make effort to engage and make numerous points you need to address each one you don't agree with or show how my logic is flawed in drawing my conclusion. I appreciate it is easier to just bander opinions and state your wrong your wrong your wrong.

Regards

[bus2bondi]

climate change is real, the time and chance spent on skeptics, is like purposefully putting up a dirty not a clean coal company. why do either, just do the opposite and see if it works, at least it wouldn't hurt anybody

(nothing against skeptics because we are all skeptics of something, thank hell for that)