The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > We are all Green now > Comments

We are all Green now : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 13/6/2007

Finally everyone is getting on board to deal with global warming: one of the biggest challenges faced by civilisation.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Peter some of us have been onboard since the 70's Howard has only just realised that it's an election issue or he would not be pretending to act now. Howard's government serves the big end of town, it seems big business [the worst polluters] come first, even before the deteration of the planet, shame Howard shame.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:11:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another pathetic statement that is supposed to end any intelligent debate 'finally everyone is getting on board'. In actual fact the opposite is happening as more and more start to question the Global Warming High Priests and their unscientific conclusions. More and more are waking up to to fact that the climate has always changed and goes through patterns. Problem is we are only ever smart after the event. Another Bush/Howard basher who must envy the success of these two men.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:21:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, good ol' runner. Another "expert" who privileges his uninformed opinion over that of the majority of scientists on the planet. Even those scientists who reject the evidence of man-made climate change that the majority of their peers point to in supporting their views do not come out with the sort of categorical statements-of-fact that runner has just offered. What's the scientific BASIS for your opinion, runner? Your child-like swollen ego that deludes you into assuming you are right does not count - sorry. Soo...evidence, mate?

Suggestion: where there APPEARS to be a trend in place that - if allowed to continue unchecked - may have disastrous consequences for millions, does it not make sense to acknowledge the presence of risk and take appropriate preventative measures? Or do you advocate playing Russian roulette when you are not 100% sure whether there is a bullet in the chamber?
Posted by Rolan Stein, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 12:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article suggests that global warming is an inarguable scientific truth, citing everyone's favourite oxymoron, "consensus evidence," as reasoning. Unfortunately, the more the reasoning behind it shifts towards "it's happening because everybody says it is," the more that once-marginalised, fanciful ideas become completely reasonable because they are spoken about by believers as self-evident truth, and the more global warming seems to shift from "environmental fad" towards "religion," the more likely it is that the skeptics and rationals of the world will begin to embrace "environmental atheism."

The thing that always interests me about the science supporting global warming is that, if our greenhouse gas emissions are the root cause of climate change, and the figures they cite for the effect they are having are correct, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to prevent environmental apocalypse. So either way, the Greenies of the world are fighting a losing battle.
Posted by Jonathan Crane, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 12:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good ol' Rolan trots out that old chestnut, the precautionary principle.

"does it not make sense to acknowledge the presence of risk and take appropriate preventative measures?"

The precautionary principle only can apply only if there is an absence of a scientific standard. The demand for scientific proof of hypothesis means acceptance according to the rules of science. "Fully established scientifically" or "scientific consensus" implies direct measure of a causal hypothesis at the statistical level of a 95% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20. So far the IPCC is only 90% certain. Using this accepted logic we would not proceed. It also means there isn't even a scientific consensus.

Emotive language has no place in scientific or informed debate eg. "disastrous consequences for millions", "Russian roulette", "bullet in the chamber"
Posted by alzo, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 2:40:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes it is a great momentum Peter. The world is becoming greener. Now that the worst of the anti-green word leaders, Bush and Howard, have shown some real green leanings (or been dragged kicking and screaming into developing some sort of green agenda), a big curve in the road away from sustainability has been turned.

But there is a hell of a long way to go yet.

“Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since at least the long war from 1914 to 1945…”

Only if you overlook the elephant in the living room that is population growth, or the imperative to become sustainable at a global level and all levels below it.

These are the things we need to concentrate on, not climate change! All this new-found energy for addressing climate change had better damn well be just an interim step on the path towards a total approach to sustainability, or else we’re not going to achieve much at all.

Peter, your sense of balance sits right at the core of your environmental passion and has done from an early age, just as it has for me.

Well, I don’t see any sense of balance in attempts to address climate change while not addressing population growth and the continuously increasing number of fossil fuel consumers. It does not compute.

In fact, until I see a genuine willingness from Howard, Bush, big industry and whole national populations to address the issue of balance and hence sustainability head-on, I think the whole climate change / environmental effort is ‘pseudogreen’ at best and a total distraction from what really matters at worst.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 3:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy