Yuyustu,

What do we do about our use of devices that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that systematised and sped up the genocidal ambitions of the Nazis? We use those devices to educate and raise awareness in the hopes that it never happens again.

The roots of just about everything we use and do can be traced back to some sort of atrocity. Global trade and religious and cultural tolerance can be traced back to the atrocities of Genghis Khan. Does that mean each country should become protectionist and intolerant of other religions and cultures?

//… looking at the origins of the concept of global warming, it started off as a political agenda and wouldn't be with us if not for the desire of Margaret Thatcher to quash the coal-miner's powerful union.//

No, the study of the planet's climate as we know it today stems back to the 1880’s when it was first realised that the increasing CO2 output after the first industrial revolution would eventually heat the planet.

Thatcher had political reasons for engaging with the issue of coal and energy, but the idea that climate science began with her is incorrect. Climate research has been independently verified by countless studies conducted by international organisations, and diverse fields of science both before and after Thatcher.

Suggesting that the global scientific community has been ‘enticed’ or ‘cheated’ into producing evidence for climate change ignores the vast, decentralised, and peer-reviewed nature of scientific inquiry.

The fact that you haven’t updated your knowledge of this topic in many years tells me that you’re clinging to an outdated narrative. If you’re genuinely concerned about ethics, you should be open to looking at the breadth of modern research, which overwhelmingly confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Dear John,

«Global trade and religious and cultural tolerance can be traced back to the atrocities of Genghis Khan. Does that mean each country should become protectionist and intolerant of other religions and cultures?»

I think there's a difference in the degree of severity between generally dealing with people who committed atrocities and benefiting directly from the fruits of their atrocities.

«the study of the planet's climate as we know it today stems back to the 1880’s when it was first realised that the increasing CO2 output after the first industrial revolution would eventually heat the planet.»...«the idea that climate science began with her is incorrect.»

I believe that it has been just one hypothesis among many.
I heard that even Margaret Thatcher received an opinion from some scientists that the earth is cooling, a reply she was not happy with...
In my view, having a research is quite different than drawing particular conclusions.

But whether or not I believe, heard and understand correctly, is not that important anyway because the planet's climate is an altogether separate question to the socio-political phenomenon of "climate change".

«If you’re genuinely concerned about ethics, you should be open to looking at the breadth of modern research, which overwhelmingly confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change.»

Firstly, it's ridiculous to expect every decent ethical person to involve themselves in [unpaid] scientific research - don't people have their own lives, their own families and their own duties to concentrate on?

While climate and its behaviour could be subject to scientific research by anyone who so wishes, "climate change" as such is a political matter, not a scientific one, and with so many social implications at that: to be open to treat "climate change" as a scientific question is in itself a specific political stand. Some people may choose so, but my personal choice in the matter is to live my own life without referring to that issue, as I have better things to do with what is left of it.

By having no offspring, my contribution to this planet's environment is way above average anyway.

Just to put things into some perspective;
Ealier the UK government called on off shore wind farm companies to
tender for supply of electricity.
No one tendered. Hmm
So they tried again and were sucessfull.
The price of offshore wind electricity has gone up 58%.
Said to be because of increased maintenance costs.
Well, well, is someone surprised that offshore maintenance is higher ?
Someone tell Bowen the ding-a-long.

Yuyutsu,

The distinction you’ve drawn is a philosophical one and only serves to distract from my point. I could list any number of more direct examples in the medical and food industries, but my point remains: we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good.

No, anthropogenic climate change is not just an hypothesis, nor is it “one of many.” The idea of global cooling in the 1970s was never more than a speculative hypothesis from a small handful of scientists based on very limited data.

Some media outlets published articles on it briefly and conspiracy bloggers have since managed to dredge these up. Now climate change deniers pretend that they remember widespread panic at the time, claiming that it was the scientific consensus back then - despite the fact that most only learned of the speculation around cooling in recent years.

//… it's ridiculous to expect every decent ethical person to involve themselves in [unpaid] scientific research …//

Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.

//While climate and its behaviour could be subject to scientific research by anyone who so wishes, "climate change" as such is a political matter, not a scientific one, and with so many social implications at that: to be open to treat "climate change" as a scientific question is in itself a specific political stand.//

You're creating an artificial divide between climate science and 'climate change' as a political matter.

Climate change is a scientific question rooted in decades of research, data collection, and analysis across multiple fields, including meteorology, geology, and oceanography. Yes, the implications of it lead to political decisions, but that doesn’t make the science behind it political.

Treating climate change as a scientific question isn't a 'political stand,' it’s simply acknowledging reality. Ignoring the science because of its social or political implications is not a neutral stance - it’s an active choice to disregard facts.

I’d recommend solar panels.
John Daysh,
I meant renewables, you know the kind that cause no emission ? To keep making new ones when the old ones had it causes more pollution than just Diesel for the mine machinery etc !

Individual,

Just for you: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy.

There’s a reason serious discussion on this topic only ever mentions net zero.