<If we left it entirely up to scientists, they'd go right ahead and build an atomic bomb, recommend the use of agent orange, develop weaponized ebola and anthrax, find ways to synthesize narcotics in your home kitchen...>

So you dont think scientists capable of exercising moral judgement? Maybe we need a high priesthood for that? And you think that scientists working for the Nazis and other oppressive regimes were autonomous I suppose?

Perhaps when scientific breakthroughs cure or control common and debilitating diseases, deliver cheaper energy, and solve a myriad of other problems, you might acknowledge that some scientists have a similar desire to see the human lot improved as you do.

I'm new here but look at these two programs and if you're not convinced that some thing's going horribly wrong then good luck.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
It the above note the locations of the communal hut.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/449/video.html
Note here the analogy with moving the rock and the boiling experiment.
Think of the climate change as an inertia wheel damn hard to get moving, but when so easy to keep running and nearly impossibly hard to stop. If we stopped pushing now i.e. stopped adding CO2 the wheel is moving how fast and how long would the damage continue? One thing is for certain the damage is INCREASING this means the water will probably rise faster as time progressed. Anyhow watch the videos they're interesting

cheers E ant

eAnt

Welcome, I hope you don’t get too bruised – I am weary.

Videos are nice, but depending on the source ... can be dragged through the mud. Why not go to the primary source, much safer and more compelling.

Susan Solomon has articulated your thoughts in true scientific terms.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.short

The abstract says it all but if you can’t get access to the full paper, the following puts it in ‘street talk’.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

In other words, it would be prudent to limit as much as humanly possible the increase in world average temperatures that is already in the pipe-line, because we will not be able to reverse it for a long long time (good name for a song).

Welcome eAnt

All sincere posters are very welcome here.

Q&A

Just remember spindoc - someone who actually went to the trouble of following up the links provided and really thought about the information provided. Pericles is disappointing in that he clearly is very intelligent but prefers a game of semantics rather than explain why we should not change our ways of using earth's resources, because AGW or not we cannot continue treating our planet as a magic pudding. I don't post as often as I used to nor as much as I would like, partly because I tire of repeating myself and secondly because some posters are more into demeaning people than attempt to civilly discuss an issue. What was that Einstein said about repeating the same action and expecting a different result?

Pericles, as I said above I think you are clearly intelligent, but you are so intent on 'winning' that you lose sight of the topic. No-one is always 100% right, not even you. I apologise in advance for any offence you may choose to make, but your frequent straw-man arguments such as:

<<<(Interesting analogy, Q&A

>>It’s akin to me telling my accountant (or electrician, or doctor, etc) they don’t know what they are talking about.<<

So, if you were a director of Enron, talking to the company's accountant, would you have been comfortable with his explanation of their revenue recognition methodology?

Or if you were an investor in Madoff's wacky world, would you have accepted his accountant's explanation of what was going on with your investments?

I guess you would.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:58:12 AM)>>>

Do not address the issue, do not reflect any research on your part regarding climate change and are a waste of time. There is nothing wrong with using an analogy to try and make a point, however, for you to then concentrate on refuting the analogy, derails the entire forum and gives the appearance you are unable to debate the topic and is utterly pointless, unless one considers that all you want is to 'win'.

I appreciate your granting me permission, Q&A

>>Of course Pericles, ask questions (I do all the time). But, the questions you ask have been asked before, and the answers have been given time and time again, here and elsewhere.<<

Why do they continue to be asked, Q&A?

Might it be that there are still some holes in the answers?

>>I can understand that some people don't like the answers, but that does not mean the answers are any less correct.<<

Ah. So we do have "correct" answers. That's encouraging.

And these would be chosen by...?

>>Following your logic, 100% proof is required before you will act, on anything.<<

Those are your words, not mine. Why do you equate the desire to continue to ask questions, with a determination to do nothing? Are you suggesting that as soon as one of your favourite scientists comes up with a theoretical solution, we should rush off and put it into practice?

Where's the logic in that?

Fester, sorry you grasped the wrong end of the stick so firmly. Next time I'll signal a sarcasm alert.

And it's not about winning, Fractelle.

>>you are so intent on 'winning' that you lose sight of the topic. No-one is always 100% right, not even you.<<

(And I take absolutely no offence, by the way.)

In fact, I see it as precisely the opposite.

My position has always been that there are inevitably far more questions than answers, and this was my attempt at preventing the suppression of more questions.

Far from expecting anyone's answer to be "100% right", I take no answer to be in any way definitive. Especially mine.

But I would at least like to hear the questions.

Q&A says to Pericles:
“Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.

Or, you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation.”

Pericles replies:
“Not at all, Q&A.”

>>Most people would understand the point I was making ... you don't and therefore are playing semantics.<<

Therefore, “you do understand the point I was making and are being deliberately obtuse and are engaging in calculated obfuscation”.

As your latest exemplifies.

Avagoodeaster.