smacks of desperation?

[HighPressure]

Would you inform the greater populace of the gravity of the situation or would you keep them guessing until the point of no return?

Well 'GW' I am a big fan of history as I think it also provides the answers of the future, because if there is one thing about man that is true is that he does not learn and he is instinctually greedy and self preservationist. Therefore the ruling elite would never give the masses full information as knowledge is power, you would find yourself hard pushed to find any government in history that did. You would be even more hard pushed to find one that gave all information of a potentially disastrous situation that survived, the most honest leaders often find themselves in an early grave.

These events could happen well before any grand Eco-disaster as they demand only the interruption of one global commodity and it's safe transportation (R.N. Vessels commandeering tankers and fighting off foreign powers and their at temps to usurp our intentions etc.)

Ho hum, I'd rather be a skeptic...........

Yep! this is where the action is likely to be long before Climate change has a real impact on us (1st world)

[noggin]

A bit of a digression, for which I apologise. But different nations do have different ideas and priorities, don't they?

I remember a discussion on the radio a couple of years back. It was about a hypothetical potential plane crash. The scenario was that a passenger plane was out of control and was heading for a crash into a heavily populated area.

The question was....should the passenger plane be blown up to prevent the massive loss of life which would occur on the ground in the event of no intervention? Whether there was intervention or not all of the souls on the plane would die, but should they actually be killed by their fellow man in order to prevent the additional massive loss of life on the ground?

A terrible dilemma.

It was, I'm fairly certain, the Germans who have a law which would have to be applied in this type of scenario which dictates that the plane would have to be left to take it's natural course with the resultant massive loss of life on the ground, because to do otherwise (ie blow it up) would involve "negotiating" peoples' lives.......weighing some lives against others. And this is something that their laws do not permit.

I only mention this because it is an example of how different nationalities have different points of view on moral issues.

[Gray-Wolf]

A bit of a digression, for which I apologise. But different nations do have different ideas and priorities, don't they?

I remember a discussion on the radio a couple of years back. It was about a hypothetical potential plane crash. The scenario was that a passenger plane was out of control and was heading for a crash into a heavily populated area.

The question was....should the passenger plane be blown up to prevent the massive loss of life which would occur on the ground in the event of no intervention? Whether there was intervention or not all of the souls on the plane would die, but should they actually be killed by their fellow man in order to prevent the additional massive loss of life on the ground?

A terrible dilemma.

It was, I'm fairly certain, the Germans who have a law which would have to be applied in this type of scenario which dictates that the plane would have to be left to take it's natural course with the resultant massive loss of life on the ground, because to do otherwise (ie blow it up) would involve "negotiating" peoples' lives.......weighing some lives against others. And this is something that their laws do not permit.

I only mention this because it is an example of how different nationalities have different points of view on moral issues.

So you end up in a 'Perdita's' dilema.....flying in aero planes could be viewed as wholly 'un-natural' and so the fate of the passengers would be assured as soon as they chose to fly (why inflict themselves on a population who took no such decision?) or that 'we are of nature' and therefore all we create is 'natural' as it comes of nature.

AGW or just GW?

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

[HighPressure]

Hi Noggin / GW

I think both your points are very black and white, but life is not its a kind of murky grey. If I take your plane dilemma, Noggin the question is too shoot or not to shoot, but look at the case of American Airlines 93 (9/11 crash) a real test case for your dilemma. Which option did the US airforce choose? I don't know as they are those who want me to believe they did and those that want me to believe they did not, clearly one is the truth and one is a lie. If I was faced with that decision I would have shot down the plane in a relatively isolated position then claimed it had crashed due to those onboard trying to regain control of it. This is of course the best possible outcome from the situation no awkward questions to answer, those onboard die heroes and the loss of life is kept to the perceived minimum.

This leads on to GW's point:

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

Yes, but in order to make that decision first you need to know which is the truth as there will be those who seek you to believe in both occurrences for reason's that may or may not be for the greater good.

One thing that I remain certain of is that we the masses are very unlikely to be delivered the truth even if its sitting on a White Hall table as we speak?

Edited July 21, 2007 by HighPressure

[jethro]

AGW or just GW?

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

Edited July 21, 2007 by jethro

[Gray-Wolf]

AGW or just GW?

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

Incredibly broad sweeping, narrow minded, blinkered and down right bloody insulting. It's precisely this thought pattern that stifles movement or agreement, not to mention compromise, in the AGW/GW debate. I would have expected more from you Greywolf.

I am deeply sorry to have twinged a raw nerve Jethro but please try and read what is written and not 'into' what is written.

The paragraph starts with 'If' and that 'If' is present throughout the whole statement. I feel that it is as concise as my poor mind can muster (sorry to disappoint) , we are either responsible ( in part or in total) or are blameless, we should either feel shame in what is come to pass or just plain horror that we were born in the time that affords us a front seat vantage point to witness the downfall of a world order and the extinction of many of the species we share our planet with.

In this 'What if' conversation you can either mire yourself in the infinitesimal of 'detail' or you can force yourself to give an answer (no matter how many caveats you would seek to add to your decision) to the posed question. I certainly do not seek to offend but I do intend to have you think uncomfortable thoughts and for those who this bring distress to I unreservedly appologise.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here's a point that keeps coming up: "What's the big problem? - if Climate Change isn't manmade then we still have a responsibility to the planet..."

Let's get this straight (and I think I speak for most, if not all, skeptics on this point) - I'm all for "Being Green", "Being Eco-Friendly", protecting the atmosphere, protecting the biosphere, cutting down on fossil fuels, utilising alternative fuels, recycling, reusing, saving electricity, saving water, saving fuel, "Saving the Planet"... That doesn't mean I have to accept AGW, it doesn't mean I shouldn't dispute AGW, and it certainly doesn't mean I should accept any blind impositions thrust upon me by the Environmentally Over-conscious government of the time.

My two main concerns are protecting the human race and protecting the fundamental basis of Science. Many of the suggested ways of tackling climate change are arguably not going to help the human race (certainly not financially, and unfortunately the furtherment and betterment of our species does rely to a very large extent, at present, on money). As for the Science... Science is regarded still as being conducted by dour, bland, humourless nerds and geeks (with a few exceptions, and despite attempts to make it seem "trendy" or interesting) - there's a very good reason for this: emotions get in the way of objectivity (there's a reason why Mr Spock was the USS Enterprise's Science Officer).

When a debate gets as heated and passionate as the one surrounding AGW, one has to step back and wonder whether the Science is being fairly represented.

CB

[jethro]

I am deeply sorry to have twinged a raw nerve Jethro but please try and read what is written and not 'into' what is written.

The paragraph starts with 'If' and that 'If' is present throughout the whole statement. I feel that it is as concise as my poor mind can muster (sorry to disappoint) , we are either responsible ( in part or in total) or are blameless, we should either feel shame in what is come to pass or just plain horror that we were born in the time that affords us a front seat vantage point to witness the downfall of a world order and the extinction of many of the species we share our planet with.

In this 'What if' conversation you can either mire yourself in the infinitesimal of 'detail' or you can force yourself to give an answer (no matter how many caveats you would seek to add to your decision) to the posed question. I certainly do not seek to offend but I do intend to have you think uncomfortable thoughts and for those who this bring distress to I unreservedly appologise.

My God GW, have you swallowed a superiorosity pill? That post is worse than the first I complained about. You are labelling AGW sceptics as people who don't give a damn about anything but themselves; if that is how you interpret AGW debate then I would venture that say's more about you and your lack of understanding for the debate, than anything else.

I didn't read anything into what you had written, except the literal meaning of those words. To be a sceptic is to lay the blame at natural cycles, ergo nothing you do or do not do will make a difference. I and many other sceptics question the science on sound scientific grounds, as do many climate scientists. That does not mean we have a total disregard for the planet or mankind. Basing the debate on your understanding that would mean all AGW believers are tree hugging, sandle wearing, tofu eating, card carrying members of Greenpeace who walk, cycle everywhere, live off homegrown organic veg and think the whole world would be a better place if we all went back to nature, lived off the land as our forefathers did. You know, I always had you down as an intelligent, open minded kind of guy, now I see you are just as blinkered as some, you yourself despise. Disappointed GW, very disappointed.

[HighPressure]

Actually CB the AGW/GW debate is quite a separate argument to way in which we as inhabitants of the Earth should be living. It is not neceasary for a definitive conclusion to be drawn for the human race to live in an environmentally clean and friendly way, which I do believe is our duty.

Just to add a seperate point, I love to know what the carbon footprint of the IPCC is as I may well argue that they do more to contribute to AGW then they do to reduce it. A bit tougne in cheek I know

Edited July 22, 2007 by HighPressure

[Gray-Wolf]

My God GW, have you swallowed a superiorosity pill? That post is worse than the first I complained about. You are labelling AGW sceptics as people who don't give a damn about anything but themselves; if that is how you interpret AGW debate then I would venture that say's more about you and your lack of understanding for the debate, than anything else.

I didn't read anything into what you had written, except the literal meaning of those words. To be a sceptic is to lay the blame at natural cycles, ergo nothing you do or do not do will make a difference. I and many other sceptics question the science on sound scientific grounds, as do many climate scientists. That does not mean we have a total disregard for the planet or mankind. Basing the debate on your understanding that would mean all AGW believers are tree hugging, sandle wearing, tofu eating, card carrying members of Greenpeace who walk, cycle everywhere, live off homegrown organic veg and think the whole world would be a better place if we all went back to nature, lived off the land as our forefathers did. You know, I always had you down as an intelligent, open minded kind of guy, now I see you are just as blinkered as some, you yourself despise. Disappointed GW, very disappointed.

Once again Jethro, the post was a 'black and white' ,polarised view of the issues as I see them. I have made no attempt to pigeonhole any person or group nor to attack them. In a Winters Tale Perdita has a debate with the Prince over what flowers she will have in her garden. She will not have 'un-natural things' (like the carnations) but he reminds her she is of nature so that any 'cross breeding' that man does is as natural as if a Bee had done it.

If you couple this with the bizarre stance the Germans have adopted on the aeroplane scenario you get my post. No attacks, no slurs just the basic options that would be if the outlined situation were to become fact.

[jethro]

Once again Jethro, the post was a 'black and white' ,polarised view of the issues as I see them. I have made no attempt to pigeonhole any person or group nor to attack them. In a Winters Tale Perdita has a debate with the Prince over what flowers she will have in her garden. She will not have 'un-natural things' (like the carnations) but he reminds her she is of nature so that any 'cross breeding' that man does is as natural as if a Bee had done it.

If you couple this with the bizarre stance the Germans have adopted on the aeroplane scenario you get my post. No attacks, no slurs just the basic options that would be if the outlined situation were to become fact.

Hang on a second, if you wanted to argue/debate that point as a black/white situation, fair enough. However to then throw into the debate on a climate sceptics thread, the following:

So you end up in a 'Perdita's' dilema.....flying in aero planes could be viewed as wholly 'un-natural' and so the fate of the passengers would be assured as soon as they chose to fly (why inflict themselves on a population who took no such decision?) or that 'we are of nature' and therefore all we create is 'natural' as it comes of nature.

AGW or just GW?

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

Then you are indeed pigeon-holing a group of people for their stance on climate change. You and I stand on opposite sides of the fence in that debate, fair enough, I having my reasons, you have yours. Time and again the pro AGW camp, of which you are a prominent member on this forum; take the moral high ground and denegrate sceptics as folk who don't care about the planet, that somehow to be a believer in AGW makes you more caring, responsible, looking to the future for the future of mankind. Quite frankly, that's hogwash. If you want to debate black/white rhetorical situations, go ahead, but please do not then throw AGW/GW into the same debate and then say, that's not what you intended.

[Gray-Wolf]

Then you are indeed pigeon-holing a group of people for their stance on climate change. You and I stand on opposite sides of the fence in that debate, fair enough, I having my reasons, you have yours. Time and again the pro AGW camp, of which you are a prominent member on this forum; take the moral high ground and denegrate sceptics as folk who don't care about the planet, that somehow to be a believer in AGW makes you more caring, responsible, looking to the future for the future of mankind. Quite frankly, that's hogwash. If you want to debate black/white rhetorical situations, go ahead, but please do not then throw AGW/GW into the same debate and then say, that's not what you intended.

Please Jethro ,both believe and understand that all these posts were in no way intended to show difference between people. My posts are intended to include all views under the same envelope. I do not much care who, what or how we find ourselves where we are but am greatly concerned that we are where we are and ,to my way of understanding things, we are way beyond the point of doing anything about it apart from to figure out (individually) how best to survive it.

In our house it is rare to try and attempt to 'apportion the blame' for things. Better (for us) to just assess the situation and deal with it. To apportion blame is to play mind games and I'd like to think we are not like that here.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hang on a second, if you wanted to argue/debate that point as a black/white situation, fair enough. However to then throw into the debate on a climate sceptics thread, the following:

So you end up in a 'Perdita's' dilema.....flying in aero planes could be viewed as wholly 'un-natural' and so the fate of the passengers would be assured as soon as they chose to fly (why inflict themselves on a population who took no such decision?) or that 'we are of nature' and therefore all we create is 'natural' as it comes of nature.

AGW or just GW?

If AGW then we have a moral duty both to undo that that we have caused and also protect and maintain those at risk through our actions (be it microbial or mammal) if it is all just a normal oscillation of global climate then we would owe no such 'duty of care' and could selfishly try and just save our own skins (and the rest be hanged) with a clear concience........

Then you are indeed pigeon-holing a group of people for their stance on climate change. You and I stand on opposite sides of the fence in that debate, fair enough, I having my reasons, you have yours. Time and again the pro AGW camp, of which you are a prominent member on this forum; take the moral high ground and denegrate sceptics as folk who don't care about the planet, that somehow to be a believer in AGW makes you more caring, responsible, looking to the future for the future of mankind. Quite frankly, that's hogwash. If you want to debate black/white rhetorical situations, go ahead, but please do not then throw AGW/GW into the same debate and then say, that's not what you intended.

Jethro, I really cannot see why you're getting so hot under the collar here. GW has said that "IF" GW is anthropogenic then we have a moral duty to correct it. In so much as GW may be harmful if allowed to continue unchecked, and depending on your interpretation of "moral", I can see no issue with this statement. I do not see that by inference or implication sceptics are therefore branded selfish. I do not doubt that there are some who are sceptical because they ARE selfish (go see the "Tragedy of the Commons" and "the lifeboat theory" by Garrett Hardin for one of the definitive argument regarding why people behave this way), but there are also a few who are sceptical because they doubt the science. Fair enough if you're in that camp.

Maybe it's a case of "if the cap fits", and you're finding the fit uncomfortably good?

[Gray-Wolf]

As I had said Jethro this is no way 'aimed', it involves us all. Too many times I've had to explain that I am purposefully 'emotive' in my choice of words, never to 'offend' but certainly to promote a robust response.

Our way of being has had it's day and we must change or be left facing the consequences (both physical and moral)........and that is for the whole planet to digest.

[jethro]

As I had said Jethro this is no way 'aimed', it involves us all. Too many times I've had to explain that I am purposefully 'emotive' in my choice of words, never to 'offend' but certainly to promote a robust response.

Our way of being has had it's day and we must change or be left facing the consequences (both physical and moral)........and that is for the whole planet to digest.

And I'd left this alone, leaving you with the final say a couple of weeks ago. I've made my point, explained my stance sooooo many times on various threads, I'm not making it again. If others what to re-start this debate then it's up to them, you aimed to promote a robust response, you got one, end of, as far as I'm concerned. SF will have to find another head on which to fit a cap, mine's comfortable with the one I have.