Has ClimateGate Changed Your Thinking ?

[eyeball]

There are plenty of good scientists out there who have been bullied into silence by the alarmist zealots. Shove the alarmists off the stage and these people will be able to make contributions and those contributions won't necessarily support the sceptical view but if the debate is freed from those who seek to control it for political objectives we will be better able to assess to true state of the science.

Can we also shove the economic alarmists off the stage?

[Argus]

I fail to see how any discussion that includes people who refuse to acknowledge the economy must take into account its effects on the environment could be considered rational.

That's funny, because I fail to see how any discussion that includes people who refuse to acknowledge that making wholesale changes to economies in the name of environmentalism have to take the actual health of the economy into consideration can be considered rational either.

[Argus]

You seem to be coming around to the idea of monitoring, that's good too.

You think the Chinese will agree to monitoring? Apparently they are deeply offended at the idea put forward in a recent paper that their word was not quite good enough insofar as what their emissions might or might not be reduced or increased by.

[Argus]

In related news, we have interestingly 11 to 10 in favour of this changing your thinking.

If the results are as such across society, then science needs to take stock. I would like for them to reach out to the public through the web to educate and infotain.

They can start by explaining exactly what wholesale cuts to emissions will get us, and when. Will it end global warming? No? What will it do? You don't know? Then why should we do it?

[Michael Hardner]

They can start by explaining exactly what wholesale cuts to emissions will get us, and when. Will it end global warming? No? What will it do? You don't know? Then why should we do it?

It may slow global warming. Am I certain ? No, but certainty isn't the threshold we use to make important decisions.

[Argus]

It may slow global warming. Am I certain ? No, but certainty isn't the threshold we use to make important decisions.

It "May" "slow" Global Warming?

Does it really make sense to you to spend TRILLIONS of dollars HOPING that our actions might delay the inevitable? Would it not make more sense to put that money into research into alternative energy sources such as fusion, and into ameliorating the inevitable effects of Global Warming?

[Michael Hardner]

It "May" "slow" Global Warming?

Does it really make sense to you to spend TRILLIONS of dollars HOPING that our actions might delay the inevitable? Would it not make more sense to put that money into research into alternative energy sources such as fusion, and into ameliorating the inevitable effects of Global Warming?

Jeez, Argus, why not load the question some more ? The question as you posed it was "why cut emissions" ?

Then you come back and say "why don't we look into fusion". Why would we do that ? So that we could cut emissions, right ?

[eyeball]

That's funny, because I fail to see how any discussion that includes people who refuse to acknowledge that making wholesale changes to economies in the name of environmentalism have to take the actual health of the economy into consideration can be considered rational either.

I agree. I'd say a precautionary principle is in order, wouldn't you?

[eyeball]

You think the Chinese will agree to monitoring? Apparently they are deeply offended at the idea put forward in a recent paper that their word was not quite good enough insofar as what their emissions might or might not be reduced or increased by.

I think if Copenhagen doesn't lead to a meaningful agreement within a year that more aggressive measures in the form of sanctions/tariffs to bring recalcitrant nations around (including our's) will be warranted.

Perhaps those nations that are bound and determined to make changes will simply have to form a separate trading bloc and go it alone. Something like this should have evolved decades ago around the issue of human rights. I actually think the development of human rights is the precursor to better environmental justice and stewardship. I fail to see how you can have these without the former.