Originally posted by Angus
Politicians and a lot of the public alike, refusing to identify global warming.
Denialism.
I have checked the posts made by myself and others that share my position. I do not believe that any of us have denied the existence of global warming. Where we differ is the question "is it being caused by man or is it a natural cycle". I believe we have quoted many credible sources that would indicate our position is right that it is not caused by man (Mars is warming also, the middle ages were as warm or warmer than now, etc.) Others have quoted sources to substantiate their point of view. Therefore the question remains unanswered not just by us on this board but the scientific community as well.
So the only real question is what should be the response of the world community? Should we destroy the economies of the western world? That is the result should Kyoto be ratified by the US. I would like to link to a speech made by Lord Nigel Lawson November 1, 2006.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061112_reason.pdfI believe that anyone who actually reads this will find it honest, factual and hard to argue against. And no it is not one sided he like myself agrees that the climate is warming and that the wealthier nations have an obligation to assist the poorer nations in coping with changes that may occur such as rising sea levels.
I am not religious if fact I have never been to any church service. But what I know of religion from reading and my interaction with others puts me in a good position to agree with one section of this article in particular and it is the only portion I will quote.
“It is not difficult to understand, however, the appeal of the conventional climate change wisdom. Throughout the ages something deep in man's psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings: "the end of the world is nigh". Almost of all us are imbued with a sense of guilt and a sense of sin, and it is so much less uncomfortable to divert our attention away from our individual sins and causes of guilt, arising from how we have treated our neighbours, and to sublimate it in collective guilt and collective sin.
Throughout the ages, too, the weather has been an important part of the narrative. In primitive societies it was customary for extreme weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of examples of this theme in the Bible, either - particularly but not exclusively in the Old Testament.
The main change is that the new priests are scientists (well rewarded with research grants for their pains) rather than clerics of the established religions, and the new religion is eco-fundamentalism. But it is a distinction without much of a difference. And the old religions have not been slow to make common cause. Does all this matter? Up to a
point, no. Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that religion can bring. If people feel better when they buy a hybrid car and see a few windmills dotted about (although perhaps not in their own backyard), then so be it. And in a democracy, if greenery is what the people want, politicians will understandably provide it, dressed in the most high-flown rhetoric they can muster. Indeed, if people are happy to pay a carbon tax, provided it is not at too high a level, and the proceeds are used to cut income tax, that
would not be a disaster, either. It would have to be a consumer-based tax, however, since in the globalised world economy industry is highly mobile, whereas individuals are much less so.”
