|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: OT: Government's attitude to green energy 80 messages | Select a forum: |
| As it happens I am - on balance - of the layman's opinion that average temperatures have risen over the course of the past couple of decades... although - in fairness - I have seen data that dispute this. For me, however, by far the salient issue is whether this adverse global warming, climate change (etc) is impacted by the actions of human kind to a degree significant enough to suggest that immediate, far reaching world-wide actions (with the necessary return to centralised control and restriction of personal liberty so hard won from the grip of authoritarians with so much blood) will make any practical difference - or indeed ANY difference. Are the data available to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is not simply the actions of a living planet, the continuation of a natural cycle that may well have prompted the first modern humans to leave Africa in the first place? Processes that we have no control over. Why are the 'pro' scientists so convinced this is not a momentary interlude prior to a descent to the next glacial maximum? I assume there is a clear reason - surely, there must be - so please share it in terms the layman such as myself can grasp and therefore come on board. Are you saying the data collected by the scientists representing the 'yes' view are so overwhelming? If so, why ARE there are so many contrary opinions by other, apparently competent (?), scientists? Surely you aren't suggesting the 'pros' are all righteous people and those who disagree are all incompetent, deluded, corrupt, or members of some death cult (I hesitate to say religion, although parallels with extreme views can be drawn) who simply cannot - or refuse - to see the truth... or are all in the pay of evil governments who want us all to die for some unexplained reason or other. Does this really seem credible? Really, does it? I must emphasize I am not saying the data is not there - how could I since, as you explain, accusations of falsehood have been withdrawn / discredited? - what I am saying is cries of 'infamy' are not going to convince the man or woman in the street - the person with the vote, the person who eventually brought down the Soviet state, who brought down Nixon for assuming the US President was above the law, the person who can change governments through democracy, arguably the only form of society that has worked to any degree... that there is a serious, fundamental issue of survival here that we can personally help to put right, or at least mitigate the damage as best we can. That is the challenge. Great leaders throughout history have had the ability to sell the masses their visions of a better future. The question is does the climate change movement have anyone capable of rising above dogma and petty squabbling - ranting, even - and present an compelling case we ALL can appreciate, understand and act upon? If so, I'm in. Can't afford not to be. But I won't simply have 'faith'. Tried that and it simply won't do now we've learned to read, write and think. I will continue to read - and understand as much as I can - all rational viewpoints relating to this debate. I can do without the rants since this is too serious an issue for that. Reply | with quote |  24th November 2011ce 21:48 In reply to: Re: OT: Government's attitude to green energy (PMM)2 replies: Re: OT: Government's attitude to green energy (thesweetcheat) Re: OT: Government's attitude to green energy (PMM) |
Messages in this topic: |
|