Very kind of you, Paladin. I've admired your tenacity in combating this craziness.

"Scientific consensus" is nothing more than conventional wisdom cloaked in a false aura of authenticity. What I didn't repeat in #14 is what I've said before in other threads on this topic - the conceit, arrogance and idiocy embodied in the notion that we can control the future, with a degree of calibration so fine and certain as to have no risk, is mind boggling. The Al Gore's who say OMG we have to do something are just fools willing to use their own children to conduct the experiment. That Al is making a mint off this conceit is no accident.

Don;t get me wrong, I'm not saying that the consensus is right just that there is one!  I think we might have to agree to differ on this Paladin77....

Daiwa-

I agree with you 100% on this. Never have I said anything contrary to it! However, the fact is that ever since the early to mid 90's there has been a consensus in the scientific community at large! That's thousands of scientists from different countries and institutes coming together in agreement. That's why, just recently, the national science organizations of ALL the G8 countries just released another statement confirming their position.

Using Galileo is a poor example- he was killed by the church for espousing beliefs that contradicted official doctrine. For the last 30 years, scientists trying to bring global warming to our attention have been the galileo's out there. After decades of research, however, there was so much information pointing towards man-caused climate change that all of these organizations started getting together and issuing joint statements so they couldn't be ignored. Is every scientist on the planet in agreement? Of course not, nor should they be. Just as an aside, if you happen to be a scientist who produces a paper that questions man-caused climate change you get instant publicity which can be a very good career move. But, for years scientific journals have had valid experiments published that had results supporting the theory of man caused climate change, with little or no coverage in the mass media. Why?

This is the same thing that the tobacco industry tried to do to disprove the link between smoking and cancer. If a study was published that indicated there's a causality between smoking and cancer, they had lobbyists and most importantly, scientists on payroll that would issue statements decrying those studies as 'junk science' or using faulty testing methods. "No discernible link can be found, more studies are needed!" was the word of the day. They then commissioned studies to prove that the link between smoking and cancer was nonexistent and called this 'sound science'. They kept this game up as long as possible, and again, cried that they were the victim.

No one has decided that they know all the factors influencing the climate. No one has decided that climate change is caused solely by man's activity. They have merely stated that they believe, with the information at hand, that there is a good chance we're contributing significantly to climate change. But this issue is bigger than 'global warming'. The root issue at hand here, is that for the first time in human history, governments and industry may have no choice but to acknowledge that man has the ability to affect our entire planet through his actions.

This is the root of the matter- because if that acknowledgement is made, the era of 'consequence free' development comes to an end. Let's talk about what that means. Consequence free development means that the planet is so big and powerful and resilient that we can do anything we want and it's not gonna make a lick of difference. A chemical plant spills benzene into a major river, no biggie! Just a regional slip up, no harm done in the big scheme of things. Coal mining companies deconstruct an entire mountain and contaminate the surrounding water tables, no worries! Mother nature is so great and powerful it won't have any effect on things. If there is anything we should have learned by now, it's that all actions however have consequences. Never before in the history of our world have there been 6 billion human beings walking it's surface, burning 85 million barrels of oil and tens of thousands of tonnes of coal and natural gas each and every day. To think that we can never affect our surroundings through our actions is the height of hubris, I would say.

Just as Galileo proved that we do not sit at the center of the universe, so too does this debate question our place in the bigger picture. Currently we live in a society that's built on the idea of exploiting our surroundings for profit and 'wealth creation'. This is necessary, for our civilization is built on interest. Everything must generate a return. Therefore we must constantly be developing, building widgets and gidgets and gadgets to sell and increase our profit. Food is no longer grown to feed people. It too, has become a commodity for profit. If we grew food to feed people, there would be no starvation on the planet as current food production in the world is more than enough to feed every single person. Same goes for pretty much everything else;

In the past, we grew food and constructed tools and buildings to provide a tangible necessity or function for ourselves and each other. Now, everything that's created is only a means to an end in generating wealth. Wealth, that is indeed artificial. You can't eat money, nor can you use it for much else, other than perhaps burning it as fuel in big bricks. Now, this works great so long as you have endless natural resources to develop AND the development of those resources has no appreciable effect on our environment.

Lo and behold, who could imagine that a century and a half of constant development, we might start to have an impact on our surroundings? The scientific community by and large believe that the data at hand indicate that, surprise surprise, we have had an effect and must deal with the consequences.

Once this admission is made, there is no more free ride, no more unchecked development and exploitation of our resources and environment in the name of profit. Since this would be very bad indeed for profits and the established order of things, of course there is a concerted campaign to discredit and sow misinformation and doubt.

Whod'a thunk it that actions have consequences!

When I spit in the ocean, I have an 'affect' on the entire planet. You can't measure it, but I have an effect. And when, pray tell, has it not been true that man has the ability to affect our entire planet? Are you saying we should all waltz into the ocean and give the planet back to the buffalo, the wildebeest, the bear, the lion, etc? Yours is a completely inane statement, devoid of any true meaning, more daydream poetry than anything else.


Exactly - be careful what you wish for. It is folly to gamble your children's future on the basis of a hypothesis that has a 50/50 probability of being wrong. When knowledge is skimpy, it is best to follow the adage, "Don't just do something, stand there!" Adapt to change (we're very good at that), but don't fall for the conceit that you can control change, or that anything we can do will have any particular effect. Sure, being 'green' doesn't appear likely to hurt anything, but don't bet on that as man's salvation. Had we rallied to the call to 'save the planet' from the 'coming ice age' that was the 'consensus' in the 60's & 70's, we might be in deep s--t now. Perhaps you're too young to remember it, but we've been 'doomed' before.


Again, nice prose, but devoid of true meaning. With what, exactly, would you replace the 'established order of things'? Whether you realize it or not, this is an example of a socialist's justification of his lust for seizing control of the choices of others.


WTF? I'd love to hear your ideas on an alternative to this, Arty.

When the first men banded together in a village to defend themselves from other men and beasts, food became a commodity. It is as old as civilization itself.

Yea, it would seem that being human is now a bad thing. But I always wonder, when people complain about how other "abuse" something to make money off of it, if given the chance to open a business to (obviously) make money, would they restrain themselves from the idea of making more money if they simply charged 5 or 10 cents more?

Ask Ben and Jerry - they dont seem to be wanting, even though their product is the most expensive around.

Hehe. If given the chance I would make as much money as possible. Would I care about the consumer in the process? I would care that they got a decent of not great product, but if they chose to waste their money on my product, that's not my problem.

One thing I can say for sure about this whole Global Warming, Climate Change, what ever you wanna call it. Those who like going around saying the US Govt or it's citizens are not doing enough or anything to stop this need to be the ones actually doing something about it before they go around pointing fingers.

I say if you don't drive a solar power vehicle, live in a solar powered/wind powered house, eat only from the organic veggies grown in your own back yard and do most of the house chores by hand, you got no business going around screaming at people for causing Global Warming, Climate Change or what every you wanna call it.

And I agree with this statement. Nowhere in any of my articles have I "screamed" at people for causing global warming. The first step though, is in getting governments and industry to admit that we have a problem. The solution goes beyond living in cold houses and riding bikes to work, although conservation does have good side effects and saves money. The solutions have to be reached by everyone working together, and in order for that to happen there has to be common agreement as to the issue at hand!



This is true. But thanks to modern technology and economics we've succeeded in pushing the commoditization of food well beyond any reasonable threshold. Look at many developing countries- although they have millions of people who are starving and malnourished, most of their rich, arable land is devoted to cash crops. Coffee beans and pineapples to be exported abroad, meanwhile they're having food riots in the streets as the cost of staples go through the roof!

Another HUGE waste of space and energy is cattle ranching. Now don't get me wrong. I love those double-cheeseburgers and sirloin steaks like nobody else, but when you crunch the numbers on modern cattle ranching we discover that it's one of the most innefficent uses of land, energy and water around. Most folks don't know that in order to get 1 pound of beef at the supermarket that equates into something like 20 lbs of grain, so many gallons of freshwater, petrol, etc (I don't have the exact figures but I've read them previously and they are frightening!) So if cattle ranching is so darn inneficient and land and resources could go to growing so much more food and staples, why do we do it? Because it's so profitable!



Well for one we need to stop believing in the concept of "unlimited development"- every system in nature has peaks and valleys, the all-encompassing sine wave that we see reproduced throughout many different systems as a means of attaining equilibrium. Now we are told that our market works the same way with cylces of boom and bust but it just isn't true. Our civilization is built on the concept of interest, everything must generate a return. Everything must always grow and expand. This simply isn't feasible, economically or practically. Otherwise, we'll have to end up building some spaceships and finding another planet as we'll turn this one into Easter Island eventually. We have 6 billion people on our planet right now. In another 30 years we might have over 9 billion. That's a lot of mouths and assholes, and all of em' are gonna be wanting their slice of the pie. Yes, mother nature is indeed resilient but as a species we are in uncharted water here as to our effects on demands we place on the planet (there have never been this many people alive at one time before, using up so many resources as there are today)

I have no 'lust for seizing control of the choices of others'. I have never said that, and please kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. This topic is about the one thing that conservatives love to harp on about all day long. Responsibility! It goes beyond the individual level too you know! As a society we need to take responsibility for our collective actions. To say that things will all just work out with the status quo is bunk. To say that the hocus-pocus of the free market will just sort it out is also delusional!

There was a problem with acid rain in the 70’s it was a real problem and once it was discovered it was fixed in less than 5 years. So why do you expect the world to fix a problem that has not been proven as a problem yet?

Define 'reasonable threshold.'


I'll give you partial credit for that. However, the fluctuations in nature are not a 'means' of anything - they just simply occur.


Please provide the evidence upon which you base that conclusion.


You may not think so, but your position is an example of just that - if the only way to accomplish 'your' objectives is to block 'others' from accomplishing theirs, you will need to 'seize control' of their choices.

On a broader scale, the notion that some of us must save the rest of us from our 'folly' is an unfounded concept. I personally hold the belief that homo sapiens, being the most intelligent species on the planet, will find a way to adapt in its self-interest, without the coercive influence of some who think they know better how we should conduct ourselves. We may well need to turn this place into 'Easter Island' but, if we do, it will be due to a new ice age or some other unpredictable & uncontrollable event (one of those peaks or valleys you refer to), not due to some magic number of individuals that you or anyone else decides is some sort of golden 'threshold'.

That is an opinion - not always shared by the housewife picking up a bunch of Bananas in a grocery store in Maine. Or an immigrant from Venezuela picking up banana leaves for tamales in Richmond.

Reasonable is subjective. I think all will agree non-perfection, but few outside of the starving aub-sahara or Bangladesh are going to say it has gone too far. And that is not a sympton of going too far, but of avarice and greed among petty tyrants the world over.