"which is a profound observation on the tendency of your precious economic rationalism."
-Squeers

A profound demonstration of the principle that if you don't know what you're talking about, it is always wisest to keep your mouth shut (or your fingers off the keyboard).

I am not an economic rationalist. I don't know what economic rationalism is. I don't really know much about what economics is, 'coz I only studied it for one year in high school, found it very boring, didn't do very well, and resolved never to have aught to do with it again. I do know that economics is not a science, despite what some folk claim, 'coz I am very interested in science and I know it looks like when I see it. I tend to regard economics as more of a black art - it corrupts the souls of those who study it, and should only be messed with if you really know what you're doing.

"It is simply a fact that there is an ethical dimension to this debate that cannot be denied or rationalised in the same way you and your ilk deny and rationalise the bleedin obvious--that we are having a devastating and unsustainable impact on the "whole" environment."
-Squeers

I believe that 'facts' aren't facts unless without a supporting body of evidence or a logical proof. Otherwise they're merely assertions. You made no attempt to prove in any way that there is an ethical dimension to this debate, so rightly I should take your simple fact with a hefty grain of salt. But I'm in a very good mood, so I'll charitably take it as axiomatic.

The hypothesis that we are having a devastating and unsustainable impact on the "whole" environment is not 'bleedin obvious' unless it is self-apparent (it's not) or until it has been tested and shown to be sound, or logically proven. Happily, it is a testable hypothesis. Then again, it is much easier to make assertions about man's vandalism of Gaia than it is to produce evidence for said assertions.
to be continued..

continued..

So let's not bother with crazy ideas like testing hypotheses or basing policy on evidence. Let's rely on emotive arguments and platitudes, and sod the data. Hey, it's worked so well in the past.*
*sarcasm

"Since it has been repeatedly proved that "facts" and "evidence" are the slipperiest data of all..."
-Squeers

Yeah, why am I not surprised? I'd be shytting bricks laughing if it weren't so sad that you truly believe that logic and empirical data meets a lower standard of proof than hearsay, conjecture, opinion, faith, etc.

And how did they prove it if "evidence" is so dodgy?

"I resort to a quaint old tradition called ethics, which doesn't have much currency, but I value it over your "facts"..."
-Squeers

Again, why am I not surprised?

According to the great Dr. Phil: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". And you can dress up 'emotive arguments' in 'a quaint old tradition called ethics', but it still won't beat empiricism or logic even if they were bound and blindfolded.

"Leo Lane was presumably referring to the fact that the Co2 from the last several years has yet to register. Of course there would be a measurable effect, but not for a few years. He seems to think that because there's a time lag there's not point in acting.
Spindoc's anecdotal evidence of a gw backflip is interesting if unsurprising. Actually, I don't think it's any different here; there doesn't seem to me to be the public will to tackle AGW because of the money involved. It's fascinating, btw, that spindoc conflates lack of will with the reality of the phenomenon:"
-Squeers

So now you're all about evidence and logic? Only when it suits you, I guess. You twist and turn like a... twisty turny thing.

George Jetson :)
"If we can do it cleaner and more efficiently than is the current norm, then why aren't we?"

Perhaps because 'we' only believe what 'we' want to believe, science has got nothing to do with it.

The American Psychological Association has published a report on 'Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges.'

Fascinating reading http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.pdf

and puts Riz's comments into perspective:

<< according to the great Dr. Phil: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" (reminds me of the Sarah Palin kerfuffle) ...

... And you can dress up 'emotive arguments' in 'a quaint old tradition called ethics', but it still won't beat empiricism or logic even if they were bound and blindfolded (I agree). >>

Squeers, the point I was making was “Whatever is going on in the rest of the world seems not to be reflected on OLO. Is it because we don’t know or don’t want to know?”

I would have thought that for a country like Germany that committed earlier and deeper to carbon reduction, a decision to now stay with nuclear and announce new dirty coal (lignite) power generation, would have been a significant issue worthy of debate on OLO?

In rushing to defend AGW against the threat of “back flip”, are you not making the point for me? Either you don’t know or worse, you don’t want to know.

Rather than dismissing the information as “anecdotal”, why don’t comment as to “why” these decisions have been made by Germany? Surely that is the issue to be discussed here, not whether or not it is “anecdotal”.

So why do you think these announcements have been made? After all we started out with AGW to “reduce carbon emissions”, now one of the main players is going to burn dirty coal? Please explain?

Dear Clownfish,
The defence I offered is correct and born out by poststructuralist philosophy. Supposing Seattle did write the text; it would still not be "authentic" as all meaning is cultural and part of a diachronic intertext the writer uses. If this were not so, a text's import would be incomprehensible; signifiers do not point unproblematically to signifieds. The "rhetorical truth" of the Seattle text is what makes it authentic, not its authorial authenticity.

Dear Riz,
For shame! You've completely misrepresented me; cherry-picked what I said and taken me out of context. Why am "I" not surprised?

Dear Spindoc,
I didn't use the word "anecdotal" to insult you; what you put forward was anecdotal, unless you can establish that your minute and partial experience is representative of what "the rest of the world".

Moreover, I didn't "defend AGW against the threat of “back flip”"; I agreed with you, saying that "there doesn't seem to me to be the public will [here] to tackle AGW because of the money involved". OlO seems to me evenly divided on the issue--though in the crunch there would, imo, be many back-sliders.

There are coal-fired power stations being built all over the world and Australia continues to export the fuel. The whole world is of course dependent upon fossil fuel, and more importantly enthral to an economic fundamentalism that demands the extraction of profit. This is the single biggest reason for our failure to act. Profit is derived from growth and innovation and the (non-human) means of production is fuel. Retaining that dynamic in a conservative paradigm of decreasing emissions is non sequitur. We cannot act effectively on climate change without wealthy countries suffering immensely (the poor half wouldn't notice). Even many professed devotees to the cause would suffer a failure of will when it came to the crunch.
Any conspiracy consists, imo, in the knowledge on high that human population must plummet. I suspect that the push is on to harness the incredible power of the capitalist dynamic to drive innovation dedicated to ultimate survival "before" the inevitable crash. The survival of wealthy elites.

Just to clarify my thesis,
the global push to to address climate and develop cleaner fuel, by diverting vast funds and R&D to the project, cannot save the world's burgeoning human population or western lifestyle on anything like the current scale. This is CDF. The idea, and 'twas ever thus, is to save the Quality: develop the technology for survival (in style) with a momentous technological push, convincing the industrious masses that we can turn things around. And we probably can, but only for the chosen people. The wealthy and powerful are using us to build them an Ark...