Then they told us the trees will all die and the world will be destroyed in a nuclear war.
Natasha, I tell you one thing: I am tired of all those horror scenarios that are invented by certain political circles to intimidate and control people.
Believe what you want, but don't tell me that there exists such a thing like "man-made, CO2-caused climate change". And don't tell me that I have to change my behaviour and my life to accomodate to what you call "make the world a better place".
If you believe in this climate-change-religion, that's your personal decision, but I am really offended by seeing this proselytisation in a technical community like SDN.
It has become so easy to start an online petition these days (and participate in one - just one click elevates you to next Che); it is a pity the revolution itself hasn't got the meme and followed these petitions just as superfluously.
Only matter of fact (as opposed to opinion/belief) that you mention in your blog is Mr. Apotheker having signed the petition.
I think this is evidence enough to what I have said - which is - hopenhagen is an online petition (which are dime a dozen these days). It being cheesy is ofcourse my 'opinion'.
In my view, the false sense of fulfillment one gets by clicking on an online petition in fact reduces the effectiveness of the cause it hopes to promote.
If there were an online petition for 'world peace', and all the likable celebrities signed and promoted it, maybe there would be a billion signatures to it. And, we would be just where we were before such petition.For all the blogging and tweeting and facebooking, and despite it being just a click on a webpage, it wouldn't meet even the votes a participant gets in one of those talent shows running on TeeVee these days.
I do not have an alternate idea to propose. Does that mean I shall shut up? Perhaps. In the same vain, perhaps one blog promoting hopenhagen on SDN would have been enough.
In regards to Hopenhagen not being COP15: there is a connection. The idea of the Hopenhagen petition is to urge the leaders meeting at the COP15 to take action. Looks like I did not explain that well enough in my blog.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think that the name "Hopenhagen" is cheesy too, but you can't necessarily judge a book by the cover.
Petitions are not the smartest direct democracy tools on Earth. And you are right in asking people to think about what we could do best.
This said, when Barack Obama opened his first "citizens portal" and asked citizens what they cared for, the top of list was...cannabis.
So let us be clear: if there is no message sent to the politicians, they will focus on...cannabis. Or health care reform, or banking subsidies.
This is about expressing the view that people care about it. One billion votes for world peace? So be it. At least tell them that you care for something else than cannabis.
I am sorry that I offended you. I see your point and saw earlier comments from you on other blogs, that you compared the climate change topic with religion. Well, you and I differ in the way how we look at this issue. I do believe that we (= human beings) are currently on a dangerous path towards destroying our beautiful planet. Of course, it is hard to be sure what exactly is happening at the moment, as we can only understand a limited amount of how the earth was "born" and the history of the world; and how it is evolving.
But, assuming that there is a chance that WE are currently destroying the planet, and even though we are not sure, would it not be better to assume the worst, recycle, cut down on pollution and take other (sometimes unpleasant) measures, even if we had to find out later that humans did not cause the larger problem after all. No harm would have been done but if WE are causing it, a lot of good would will been done...and it might not be too late to turn things around.
No matter what is true, I have to believe that decreasing pollution is good for each and every single person living in those conditions, be it in China, India or the US. Pollution causes people to get sick and alone for that reason we should "clean up our act". Let's agree to disagree, ok?
Interesting. Now you are talking about environmental *pollution*. That's a common rhetorical trick, to combine the CO2-religion with environmental pollution. But that was NOT what I talked about, ok?
"I am sorry that I offended you. I see your point and saw earlier comments from you on other blogs, that you compared the climate change topic with religion."
I did not only *compare* the believe in "man-made, CO2-caused climate change" with religion. I claim it *is* a religion because there is no scientific proof of it and especially because its believers behave religiously and call infidels "heretics".
In Great Britain, a court even judged that believe in climate change is equivalent to religious belief.
Here in Germany we have the so-called "Grundgesetz". Seehttp://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg.html
Article 4 guarantees freedom of religion and belief. Belief in "man-made, CO2-caused climate change" will probably be captured by this article.
Your tone is one of someone who does not have a doubt. That is, you say that there is no proof of man-made climate change.
Let me just remind you that you then sympathize with the 1% of the scientific community that disagrees with man-made climate change. Which is certainly justified, if you are a scientist.
But I also remember that in a recent US survey 60% of the respondents doubted of climate change. So, you belong to that 60%. You belong to the 60% who supports the 1% of the scientific community.
That is what it is - and you are fully entitled to your views. But at the very least you should avoid making this sound like a certainty. Because while you may find comfort in sharing the view of 60% of laymen, you find yourself straight against 99% of the scientific community.
You choose your camp - but if there is one who proselityzes in this discussion, this is you.
so your "camp" has enough evidence for man-made, CO2-caused climate change to justify a complete change in world economy and to force people all over the world to change their behaviour?
Don't try to assign me to a certain camp, there doesn't exist one. And I don't care if 60% of US citizens believe something or not. Should I?
I don't want to convince anyone here of my views, but from my experience in the 1970's with all these horror scenarios I just got kind of a Deja-vu.
Man-made, CO2 caused climate change is a huge business opportunity, I fully agree with that. But your children are not in danger, I promise. They are at least as safe as "prophet" Albert Gore's revenues.
I believe that when talking scientific methods and logics we should also use them and while it is healthy to have dissent, we should not confuse dissent with mainstream scientific conclusions. Check the one below out - that is a good compendium of scientif research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
"If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it."
1) Galileo's example as a scientific contrarian is interesting, as it dates back to a time when science was conflicting not with scientific method, but with religion - it takes some creativity to think that mainstream science is still there today
2) Close-enough to disastrous-enough is good-enough to take an insurance on it. Full stop. For all the uncertainties, it is difficult to fathom that we should not act on climate change: even if the probability was much smaller than what mainstream science says, we should act: the insurance market works on the same principles
3) Double standards: the financial markets allocated trillions of dollars on science (financial economics) that was even more crude than the climate science one. Why is it that when greed is the goal, this is OK, while when risk-containment is the goal we all become purists on science?
To make my point clear again:
I don't doubt that- climate is changing, ever has and ever will- humans should react on climatic changes. In fact they have done this at all times.- we should keep our environment clean and take care of natural resources etc- love our children and care for their future
But I doubt that - man-made CO2 emission is a main factor in climate change- an apocalypse will be coming because of our CO2 emissions- carbon-trade has any sense than creating revenues- IPCC is a serious and independent scientific institution- Al Gore really is a prophet of this climate-change apocalypse and has any right to intimidate millions of people with his propaganda
I believe this is a great initiative and have signed the petition as soon as I heard about it. It's great to be able to start somewhere and unite people to work for an improved future.
I encourage all who are going to check-out the bike lanes and bike-share programs in between the sessions:-)Best to all,Cheryl
"Sheikh flies Lamborghini 6,500 miles to Britain for oil change"
Enter the destination URL
Or link to existing content