More from Gore - DPChallenge Forums

01/17/2007 11:49:20 AM · #201

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

You have inserted uncertainty into your proposition (whereas you previously made an assertion).

If the doctor said "your diet has no significant impact on your cholesterol" (ignoring the fact that in the case of cholesterol it is usually an important factor), would you then change the diet you enjoyed to one that you did not? I would be very surprised if many people did - they would respond to the "significant" factors first. They might change their diet for other reasons (say, feeling healthier, more energy), but not because of cholesterol. If they don't have other reasons, then they will not change their diet.

Many people still smoke, too. The fact that THEY would choose to keep to the same habits does not mean that I would choose likewise.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I stand by my statement: if you consider human impact on climate change to be insignificant, you will not consider it necessary, and possibly not even important, for us to change our ways.

Wrong. I do consider it to be insignificant. Irregardless I DO consider it necessary, and important for us to change our ways.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

If you are unsure (perhaps an environmental agnostic), then hedging may be an appropriate course of action.

It's not hedging. It's a proper course of action, regardless of its impact on global warming.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Are you saying now that it is merely *unclear* whether human impact on the climate is significant or not?

No. I don't know where you think I even implied that. I am as certain as I can be that human impact on the climate is insignificant.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I would still stand by my original statement - to use your analogy, I consider it unlikely that you would take significant steps to change a diet you liked to one that was difficult to swallow if the doctor said that diet is an insignificant factor (again, ignoring the known position re: cholesterol). It is unrealistic to expect people to make significant changes in their life in order to make a perceived insignificant difference. If they do so, as you say, it will be for other reasons (which not all people will share).

Perhaps it would be good for you to define what constitutes "significant" to you. To me, it means "Having or likely to have a major effect; important. Fairly large in amount or quantity." ( from the American Heritage Dictionary ). In accordance with the definition I choose, you are correct - I would not take significant steps to change my diet. I would take moderate steps.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
For some, apparently yourself included, that it is unnecessary is perhaps the *natural* conclusion. But it is, obviously, not one that I would draw. I do not see what my premise has to do with the possibility or impossibility of preventing climate change - but, now that you mention it, I WOULD agree that it IS impossible to prevent climate change.

This reflects my argument (although my argument is less generic - I only wish to reverse trends initiated by man, although I also give that greater weight than you) on the danger of assuming human impact to be insignificant - we assume that the changes are too big to be controlled, and our impact too small to be worth changing, and if we did change our impact, it would have an insignificant effect on the larger whole.

You mistakenly draw a direct correlation between significance and worth, where none is implied. A change does not have to be significant, nor be undertaken for a significant reason, to have worth.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I think that this severely underestimates:

1) the extent to which we *can* have an impact on global weather and atmospheric systems (of which the ozone layer was merely an example)

2) the extent to which the current warming has been influenced by human activity; and

3) accordingly, the extent to which changing our activities can change the global climate trends because:

a) our activities represent a very significant factor in climate change; and

b) changing our activities can have a very significant influence.

You are certainly entitled to think along those lines, and to express your thoughts. And I am entitled to think otherwise.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

But we have identified systems operating within our atmosphere that do provide an answer. You say "umbrella" - but in fact what we need is to reduce heat retention (we only need an umbrella for the infra red elements of the sun's rays). I don't pretend to understand all the details, but I am willing to accept the answers revolving around CO2 reduction identified by mainstream science.

And I am not willing to accept the answers put forth by mainstream science. Because they have not provided credible research showing the cause/effect relationship between human activity and global warming. Yes, it's true that they can prove that human activity increases the levels of atmospheric CO2, but they haven't provided credible evidence showing that increased CO2 causes global warming for the first 800 years of a warming trend, on average, based on the scientific analysis of ice core samples. And the current warming trend started only about 150 years ago. If ice core samples really DO reflect global temperatures, they show that, in the beginning of a warming trend, warming precedes increased CO2 by some 800 years, not the other way around.

Even the famous hockey stick graph, based on tree rings, is only valid to analyze tree ring growth - and not much more. Nothing about global warming can be inferred from it, first and foremost because it doesn't even show deviations for the KNOWN periods of the medieval warming period and the little ice age. If it doesn't show deviations for those periods, what it does show is not something from which valid inferences can be drawn regarding global warming at all.

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 11:51:14.

01/17/2007 02:21:49 PM · #202

RonB

You are arguing that changing our habits is good for the environment, regardless of human impact on climate change. I happen to agree.

However, if human activity were an insignificant element of climate change, and if the cost of halting those activities is high, no sensible person would halt them in order to prevent climate change. The money would be better spent combatting the significant causes of climate change.

The fact that you might consider it beneficial to halt those activities for other reasons (eg your views on low-impact environmentalism) will not be shared by all and do not represent a *necessary* expense in the fight against climate change.

Originally posted by RonB:

I think that the fact there is a general consensus among people qualified in the field indicates a degree of credibility.

Unless you are more qualified than I understand you to be, the basis of your analysis and the aspects you choose to criticise are likely to be unduly influenced by your political affiliations and philosophical outlook rather than a broad understanding of the science. I would be happy to be proven wrong!

Originally posted by RonB:

Yes, it's true that they can prove that human activity increases the levels of atmospheric CO2, but they haven't provided credible evidence showing that increased CO2 causes global warming for the first 800 years of a warming trend, on average, based on the scientific analysis of ice core samples. And the current warming trend started only about 150 years ago. If ice core samples really DO reflect global temperatures, they show that, in the beginning of a warming trend, warming precedes increased CO2 by some 800 years, not the other way around.

The article you referred me to last week supports the background facts that you base your analysis upon, but not your analysis. It indicates that rising CO2 levels (themselves caused by other causes of global warming) create a vicious circle of warming patterns. However, historically, these have not been the cause of warming cycles.

This does not mean that CO2 is not the cause of the currently observed climate change: it is plausible that we could initiate the CO2 warming patterns by artificially increasing the CO2 levels (ie raising them outside of the historically observed natural warming patterns).

I don't pretend to know what I am talking about, but I do see these logical gaps in your argument.

forecasters predict more freezing temperatures

01/17/2007 02:56:43 PM · #203

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2007 03:14:16 PM · #204

Originally posted by RonB:

Irregardless I DO consider it necessary, and important for us to change our ways.

I think you mean "Regardless, ..."

I wish more people took your approach to this situation -- it seems like a manageable compromise.

01/17/2007 04:38:03 PM · #205

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Matthew, Even if human activity were a *significant* element of climate change, and if the cost of halting those activities was only *moderately* more, there would still be many sensible people who would not halt them in order to prevent climate change. Many people will go to great lengths to justify the reason why THEY should be exempted from the need to change.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I think that the fact there is a general consensus among people qualified in the field indicates a degree of credibility.

I don't agree. The consensus of scientific peers who reviewed the stem cell cloning claims of Hwang Woo-suk agreed that his paper be published in Science. It was published. It was fraudulent. Consensus is neither a valid scientific argument, nor a valid logical argument.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Unless you are more qualified than I understand you to be, the basis of your analysis and the aspects you choose to criticise are likely to be unduly influenced by your political affiliations and philosophical outlook rather than a broad understanding of the science. I would be happy to be proven wrong!

My view is not influenced in the least by my political affiliations. It IS influenced by my philosophical outlook ( or lack thereof, since I would much rather see empirical evidence ).

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

My point, exactly.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

This does not mean that CO2 is not the cause of the currently observed climate change:...

You are correct, it does not. I have never said that CO2 was not the cause of the currently observed climate change - only that I do not believe that it is. I can still be convinced that it is, with the right evidence.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

...it is plausible that we could initiate the CO2 warming patterns by artificially increasing the CO2 levels (ie raising them outside of the historically observed natural warming patterns).

Yes, it is plausible. I've never argued that it is not plausible. But even though I agree that it IS plausible, I will remain a skeptic until I see credible research that moves it from the realm of plausibility to the realm of certainty.

01/17/2007 04:42:19 PM · #206

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Irregardless I DO consider it necessary, and important for us to change our ways.

I think you mean "Regardless, ..."

Ugghh. My second run in with the language police this week. I guess that anything you say CAN be used against you in a court of law. :-)
Thanks for the correction, Paul. I appreciate it. Fine me if I do it again.

01/19/2007 10:33:23 AM · #207

Just to be clear - I don't think that we are disagreeing over particularly significant issues, but it is interesting to talk.

Originally posted by RonB:

[quote=legalbeagle] RonB

Matthew, Even if human activity were a *significant* element of climate change, and if the cost of halting those activities was only *moderately* more, there would still be many sensible people who would not halt them in order to prevent climate change. Many people will go to great lengths to justify the reason why THEY should be exempted from the need to change.

Agreed. However, it is objectionable for people to promote the view that our actions are insignificant (leading to very much greater (and logically consistent) apathy *if* the promotion is done recklessly or out of pure self-interest.

Originally posted by RonB:

The consensus of scientific peers who reviewed the stem cell cloning claims of Hwang Woo-suk agreed that his paper be published in Science. It was published. It was fraudulent. Consensus is neither a valid scientific argument, nor a valid logical argument.

This example has been used several times to criticise the scientific method, when in fact it should be used to celebrate it. Peer review generally occurs after publication, not before it. Publication is the event that enables peer review to happen. In this case, the fraud was exposed.

In any case, this is a criticism of a person who did *not* follow the scientific method: he abused his position. The method is sound. The problem is that its good reputation for reliability may be used and abused in order to add credibility to the claims of the unscrupulous.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

My view is not influenced in the least by my political affiliations. It IS influenced by my philosophical outlook ( or lack thereof, since I would much rather see empirical evidence ).

Oh the irony!

But seriously, the opposing view is dominated by economists, interested parties and conservative politics. The case for the link is broadly supported by independent climate scientists and moderate politics. I admit that I am probably influenced by the politics - I don't know enough of the science to make an informed judgment of my own.

Originally posted by RonB:

I will remain a skeptic until I see credible research that moves it from the realm of plausibility to the realm of certainty.

The only problem with this is that certainty is probably never going to be achieved.

01/19/2007 11:52:29 AM · #208

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

... it is objectionable for people to promote the view that our actions are insignificant (leading to very much greater (and logically consistent) apathy *if* the promotion is done recklessly or out of pure self-interest.

Based on the big *if*, I agree. That's why we have engaged in the debate over whether we should change our ways or not regardless of whether there is a direct link to global warming.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
Consensus is neither a valid scientific argument, nor a valid logical argument.
This example has been used several times to criticise the scientific method, when in fact it should be used to celebrate it. Peer review generally occurs after publication, not before it. Publication is the event that enables peer review to happen. In this case, the fraud was exposed.

What do you mean by *generally* when you say generally comes after publication? I have often been told that such and such must be true because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If peer-review comes AFTER publication, then the fact of publication, whether by a peer-reviewed journal or not, is meaningless. AND, it what you say is true, then WHO decides whether to publish a submission or not? The editors of Science or of Nature? If so, then they obviously have the ability to refuse to publish submissions that do not support their own prejudices and biases. And if that's the case, then they lose their "balance" and credibility.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

But seriously, the opposing view is dominated by economists, interested parties and conservative politics. The case for the link is broadly supported by independent climate scientists and moderate politics.

First of all, I don't believe that there ARE *independent* climate scientists. Every single one is supported by SOMEONE, they either receive funding from corporations ( e.g. Exxon/Mobil ) or from government grants. And again, I must ask, why do you dismiss the opposing view just because of who supports it, irrespective of evidence, while accepting the consensus view just because it IS the consensus view, irrespective of evidence? Hopefully, you do not rely on this type of argument in legal matters.

01/19/2007 12:09:01 PM · #209

Originally posted by RonB:

As I understand it, those journals publish credible scientific research. Part of the peer review process might already have been carried out (if the research was carried out or verified at an early stage). However, a substantial element of it results from publication: people read the journals, question and interrogate the scientists and the results, and may seek to repeat parts of the research to confirm its validity. Competing theories or opposing results may be obtained, which will then themselves be published in the same journals. Peer review is responsible for testing and eliminating rogue science, as demonstrated by the case you reference.

Originally posted by RonB:

It is always a question of degree. Exxon has a different interest to a university academic laboratory and to a different degree.

Originally posted by RonB:

And again, I must ask, why do you dismiss the opposing view just because of who supports it, irrespective of evidence, while accepting the consensus view just because it IS the consensus view, irrespective of evidence? Hopefully, you do not rely on this type of argument in legal matters.

In legal matters I employ experts where necessary. It is usually possible to find experts who will give opposing views. In determining the strength of one expert against another, I (and the court) would take very strongly into account the credibility of the expert. That involves his background, his funding/motivation, and the extent to which his views represent or diverge from the consensus views expressed in mainstream science.

Without becoming an expert (which I sadly don't have time to do), what other means of assessing credibility do you suggest employing?

01/19/2007 02:31:33 PM · #210

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

From Wikipedia:

"Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work, which they feel are not breakthroughs in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings -- if correct -- would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journals online Electronic Supporting Information archive."

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:

First of all, I don't believe that there ARE *independent* climate scientists. Every single one is supported by SOMEONE, they either receive funding from corporations ( e.g. Exxon/Mobil ) or from government grants.
It is always a question of degree.

I agree. But you tend to always give more credence to those working on government grants than to those working on corporate grants, while I do not.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
And again, I must ask, why do you dismiss the opposing view just because of who supports it, irrespective of evidence, while accepting the consensus view just because it IS the consensus view, irrespective of evidence? Hopefully, you do not rely on this type of argument in legal matters.

In legal matters I employ experts where necessary. It is usually possible to find experts who will give opposing views. In determining the strength of one expert against another, I (and the court) would take very strongly into account the credibility of the expert. That involves his background, his funding/motivation, and the extent to which his views represent or diverge from the consensus views expressed in mainstream science.

Without becoming an expert (which I sadly don't have time to do), what other means of assessing credibility do you suggest employing?

Well, rather than pitting one expert against another, and trying to denounce the credibility of the opponent, how about just presenting the physical evidence like ballistics photos, fingerprint comparisons, security photos, recordings, etc., along with a chain of evidence and let the judge/jury decide based on facts?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, Lawyers are not paid to expose the truth - their client pays them to prevail in the case regardless of what the truth is.
( Cheap shot, I know, but it appears to be true, judging by western justice ).

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 14:32:39.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/22/2007 06:10:26 AM · #211

Originally posted by RonB:

From Wikipedia:

"Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication ...[etc]

I must admit, I was confusing pre-press peer review and the general review that continues in the scientific community. Regardless, I am not trying to argue its infallibility (only the pope makes that claim to fame), only that it is a very good and generally reliable system. Pre-press peer review combined with ongoing review and experimentation works well at wheedling out the truth of things. It speaks volumes that there are only a handful of failures, and the one you speak of was perpetrated by fraud.

Originally posted by RonB:

...you tend to always give more credence to those working on government grants than to those working on corporate grants, while I do not.

Why? On the one hand, there are climate scientists employed by the government which has a keen interest in identifying what we need to do to stay safe. On the other, you have oil companies that exist for the purpose of selling oil.

Originally posted by RonB:

So cynical!

Is there ever such a case? Would you know what the significance of ballistics photos were without someone to explain them to you? Could you determine how reliable a print on a particular surface was unless someone told you? If there was ever such an obvious case that needed no explanation, it would never get before a jury (there would be a "guilty" plea).

The whole point is that the evidence is not clear, there are different interpretations, and consequently different expert reports.

The western legal system operates on a confrontational basis, with two advocates arguing the opposing points in order that the impartial jury can determine the stronger position and the truth. If any party does not play his role, then there is a procedural unfairness in one direction or the other. If we wish to operate the system that we have fairly, then each person must play his role properly.

There are other systems that include an interrogating judge and no jury, where the judge has the job of examining the evidence and identifying the truth by himself (eg France).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/22/2007 03:16:20 PM · #212

Article in yesterday's Observer

A couple of interesting paragraphs:

"Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week....

"'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert."

01/23/2007 05:45:44 AM · #213

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Article in yesterday's Observer

[...]

A further couple of paragraphs (remember that this is a highly conservative source):

Originally posted by Observer summary of a draft of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

And the cause is clear, say the authors: 'It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,' says the report.

[...]

And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short.

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 05:46:47.

01/23/2007 07:05:48 AM · #214

If it is true that we are just another rung on the evolutionary ladder, then regardless of what we do or do not do, we will simply evolve into something else.

Something that has adapted to our new enviornment.

01/23/2007 09:15:47 AM · #215

Originally posted by Flash:

Not true.

If we change our environment so quickly (ie over tens of years instead of tens of thousands of years) that natural selection cannot work to promote genes over generations that result in our survival, we will be confined to ever smaller areas of habitable land and eventually die out. Species more suited to the new environment (especially those with shorter lifespans upon which natural selection will operate faster) will flourish, adapt and evolve, and we will be a footnote identifiable from the fossil record (much like the dinosaurs).

01/23/2007 12:01:27 PM · #216

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Species more suited to the new environment (especially those with shorter lifespans upon which natural selection will operate faster) will flourish, adapt and evolve, and we will be a footnote identifiable from the fossil record (much like the dinosaurs).

That's my point.

"Something that has adapted to our new enviornment"

Via evolution, many species have died out - but "evolution" continued. If we are merely the result of a stage in the evolutionary process, then what does it matter if we are the ones to be replaced with something more suitable to the new enviornment.

edit to add: Its not like we are God's specially chosen people or anything, just another cog on the evolution wheel

Message edited by author 2007-01-23 12:03:49.

01/23/2007 12:38:39 PM · #217

MSNBC article

2 article points of interest;
A. Significant human impact
B. Rise of 1.6 degrees in the last 100 years and 3.6 degrees in the next 100 years

01/24/2007 05:26:22 AM · #218

Originally posted by Flash:

If we are merely the result of a stage in the evolutionary process, then what does it matter if we are the ones to be replaced with something more suitable to the new enviornment.

edit to add: Its not like we are God's specially chosen people or anything, just another cog on the evolution wheel

It doesn't "matter" in the context of the universe - I am fairly confident that the universe will continue to exist, and whatever life remains will continue in some new fashion for billions more years.

It "matters" in the context of our lives. No matter how you see it, we are in control of the level of comfort in which we and our offspring may exist. If you do care for these things, which is a fairly natural reaction, then it should matter to you.

I am not sure how god usefully fits in to all this - maybe something for the bible passage thread.

01/24/2007 05:31:50 AM · #219

Originally posted by Flash:

MSNBC article

2 article points of interest;
A. Significant human impact
B. Rise of 1.6 degrees in the last 100 years and 3.6 degrees in the next 100 years

Out of interest, do the key reported findings of this report change your views?

You started by calling climate change views "Greenhouse BS" and cross referred to an article refuting whether the greenhouse effect is effective.

You are now referring to a report that indicates with 90-99% certainty that human causes have resulted in a 1.6 degree rise in temperature and focus previous predictions to a narrower band of around 3.6 degrees in the next hundred years.

If you have changed your views, I would be interested to know what factors have influenced you.

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 05:32:20.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/24/2007 05:37:29 AM · #220

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It "matters" in the context of our lives. No matter how you see it, we are in control of the level of comfort in which we and our offspring may exist. If you do care for these things, which is a fairly natural reaction, then it should matter to you.

We live in a world where the unborn is treated pretty much as sub-human. Heck, even pets are treated better. It's not until babies are born when they begin to matter in society so to assume we would "naturally" care about future generations survival who have not even been conceived makes zero sense to me. That's probably the problem right there. We only care about ourselves and our immediate circle of friends and family. We most certainly don't care about strangers when it comes down to it otherwise everyone would be up at arms about stopping violence everywhere and not just places in Iraq or crime at home.

01/24/2007 05:44:00 AM · #221

Originally posted by yanko:

to assume we would "naturally" care about future generations survival who have not even been conceived makes zero sense to me.

I accept that the nature of the caring is very different, and we are ultimately quite selfish about to whom we devote care and attention. In that, we are quite short termist as a species.

However, in the context of climate change, the best part of 100 years is within the reasonable prospect of many site members here (assuming continued greater life expectancy), so the risks may be seen as being a little more immediate.

01/24/2007 07:13:57 AM · #222

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

My views have not changed. I am not convinced that Global Warming is the direct result of human impact - specifically my vehicle choices. Whether I drive a Cobalt/HHR or a Hummer, it matters little in the effect on the planet. However, I do want to demonstrate that I read more than one view. I am truly more concerned about the disappearance of the Brazilian rainforests/Amazon and the disgusting actions in Darfur than climate change that has occurred for billions of years and will occur regardless of whether we walk, ride horses/camels/bicycles, or drive 300hp motorcars.

I do believe that Global Warming is the new political hot potato that politicians and CEO's want to appear to be on the right side on. Kind of like how Rome would change its support or condemnation for christianity based on who was emperor. The truth (or falasy) of christianity did not change, only the supported position of those with influence. GeneralE mentioned a ways back that he likened conservation to religion. It doesn't hurt to practice if they are wrong and if they are right...well...its just better to be safe. I understand the point, it doesn't hurt to be conservation minded. I agree. I however, do not agree with Al Gore's movie that propagandizes Global Warming into a manmade evil due to those "rapers" of the planet called automobiles and their drivers. China is fast becoming the largest population of drivers and their contribution to automobile exhaust over the next sereral years will pale the west.

01/24/2007 08:15:17 AM · #223

Originally posted by Flash:

My views have not changed. I am not convinced that Global Warming is the direct result of human impact - specifically my vehicle choices. [...] China is fast becoming the largest population of drivers and their contribution to automobile exhaust over the next sereral years will pale the west.

I agree that your choice of one rather than another vehicle is going to make little impact. However, multiplied a few hundred thousand fold, it starts to add up. I also acknowledge that it is fruitless to argue that people should not drive, and the difference between one or other car is going to make a minor difference - and that vehicle fumes are a minor part of the broad spectrum of climate change emissions for which we are responsible.

Do you really disbelieve the evidence of human impact on climate change, or simply wish to oppose people telling you that your vehicle is environmentally offensive?

I can understand your apparent desire to drive what you want to drive - I have just bought a new car, and I chose a car with a more powerful engine than I need. My own POV is that individuals (like me and probably you) will be very poor at making environmentally sensible decisions on a personal scale. However, rather than denying the ever more apparent link between us and climate change, I would argue that major polluters (largely industry) must be forced to improve, that car makers should be subject to increasingly stringent standards, that dissuasive taxes should be introduced, and carbon reduction plans supported.

I also think that an important part of our foreign policy must be linked to encouraging developing nations to "grow up" using less polluting methods than we have benefitted from, and the additional cost that we impose on them should be paid for by us (reflecting the huge economic benefit that we have obtained from our cheap but polluting recent history).

China is a very good case in point. I have just returned from holidays in China (again - airflights = super polluting, yet are undeniable) and the pollution is horrific. Cars are everywhere (apparently, car ownership soared with the bird flu risk and fear of public transport). There are factories everywhere and the fumes are everywhere in the cities. It is hard to believe that it is not having an impact.

It might help to think about the issues in two parts:

1. are we causing a problem?

2. what should we do to remedy it?

I maintain that we should acknowledge our place as a major cause of the problem - the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in support of this conclusion. However, I accept that there are a variety of approaches towards dealing with it, and restricting vehicle choice (if that is your real concern) is not going to fix the problem.

01/24/2007 08:39:54 AM · #224

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Do you really disbelieve the evidence of human impact on climate change, or simply wish to oppose people telling you that your vehicle is environmentally offensive?

I most certainly wish to oppose people telling me that my vehicle is environmentally offensive. Especially when they themselves act and or drive in (what I percieve to be) a hypocritical manner.

The balance of your post I believe is a sensible representation of both my sentiment and the evidence.

My "dig" regarding the evolution commentary a couple of posts up was merely sarcasm aimed at "unbelievers". It seems to me that many responsibilities become clearer when we acknowledge our stewardship role of this planet on "God's" behalf. For those claiming the non-existence, and even more so those embracing pre-determinism, then it really matters not what we do - as evolution is the ultimate determinate.

Have most enjoyed this thread. The contributions of the wide variety of posters helped illuminate, for me the real issues at hand.
1. It is occuring
2. Responsible conservation can't hurt.