Peter Hume,

You said:

"And how do you know it's a 'FACT' that we could and should function better that way?"

Otokonoko very well echoed my thoughts on the rest of your comment so I won't bother responding to that, but, it's a fact that we could function better as a species by way of technological improvements like hydrogen engines, solar power, wind power etc etc. I'm not saying they are perfect and are the answer, but we have the brain power to figure out something better. So, we could. We should because we owe it to this planet to treat it with as much respect as we can. Do you dump your rubbish on the side of the road?. Bet you don't, but why not?. I bet part of it is an environmental conscience

StG, you say <<You are - apparently - in either one of two camps. You believe that the climate is changing for the worse, or you don't ... apparently. >>

Partly right, AGW supporters do “believe”. This is because they have “faith” that one side of science is correct. For those who see two sets of contradictory science there is no requirement whatsoever for “belief’. We just see the contradictions and would like both sides of science to get together and provide a balanced assessment we can accept.

Your fury and rejection of the current scientific impasse is palpable. You then go on to blame everyone. You blame politicians of all persuasions, you blame more developed countries, you blame our lack of common sense, you blame giving power to all the wrong people and you blame everyone for not being a better species.

You need to recognize that what you are going through is natural consequence of denying the cause of your angst, which is the scientific impasse. It’s called the Trauma Cycle. Just so you can see where you’re at, the progression and symptoms are as follows;

Shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution

examinator, you point out;

<<In truth the argument hasn't been about Global warming and or the environment per se for a very long time.>> Actually it never was, ever.

<<It has gone through several stages;
- first it was an argument over (fear of) change;
- then fear of personal loss i.e. money, jobs, perceived power (vested interest);
- and now political posturing and dogma>>

What you have described precisely is a public alarm phenomena, I refer you to your use of the word “fear”. This is 26th such instance since 1798. The good news is that none of the other predictions eventuated either.

spindoc,

I thought that THAT part of my initial comments was quite obviously 'tongue in cheek'...apparently. But thanks for the heads-up on what I'm REALLY feeling. Lotto numbers perhaps?.

Spindoc,

glad to see you read my humble utterances.

I think you are using the term fear in a different context than I did.
You are clearly inferring that the the whole topic is a fear campaign run by the 'alamists'i.e. those who support global warming action now.
Equating it with the y2000 bug scenario.

Conversely I was describing the human trait to fear what is not understood or convenient.(part of the fight or flight principal)
In previous posts here I attacked the notion that the issue is either one extreme (total belief action now or total scepticism no action now) or the other (your clear stance).

I argued that doing something now (precautionary principal) doesn't necessarily = full blown panic, destruction or premature reactionary behaviour.

I argued that the issue is one of probabilities (alternative views incl.) as is the answer. I postulated that that answer is more likely to be in the centre than the extremes.i.e. limited action now. Addressing issues of pollution and reliance on Oil/coal and the western profligate lifestyle come to mind. Obviously something must be done to alleviate the destructive survival desperation of the third world.

Finally your dismissal of the issue as the 26th fear campaign is avoidance not dealing with the inconvenient reality of probable threats.

StG:

This issue of Global Warming has been deliberately
selected as an ideal way for vested interests to
gain money and power from the gullible minions.

Global Warming is generally accepted as being an
ongoing occurrence, and I do not think that anyone
would logically dispute that fact, however, the actual
cause of this phenomenom is where all the source of
argument exists.

There are two basic schools of thought emanating from
the opinions espoused by the equally divided members of
the world`s scientific community. One group`s opinion
would have us believe that Global Warming is a result
of the man-made gradual destruction of the environment
by atmospheric pollution etc.

The second group`s opinion is that Global Warming is
simply another round of natural climatic warming events
that have occurred many times before during the history
of this planet and is a result of increased Solar Flare
activity, over which we have no control.

With both of these opinions in play, certain political
elements have seized upon the first group`s opinion as
the ideal opportunity to capitalize on the gullability of
the voting public, by creating a nation-wide "guilt
complex", promoting the implementation of a big new
Carbon Tax, conveniently providing a much needed boost
to the national coffers,....a move that will be seen
to be utterly futile in actually reducing Global
Warming.

The public of this country should NOT be bamboozled into
voting for or supporting this "evil new tax upon everything"
and I would encourage each individual to think for himself
or herself,...consider the truth of the scientific facts
presented and support commonsense!....Do NOT be conned again!

One of the most distinctive of all human
characteristics is that we are tool-using
animals. True, a few other animals have learned
to employ implements in a rudimentary way; for
example, sea otters sometimes use rocks to
smash mollusk shells, and chimpanzees occasionally
use twigs to extract termites from their nests.
But the tool use of other species has little if any
permanent effect on their social or natural
environments. People, in contrast, have used
increasingly sophisticated techniques to act on the
social and natural world for thousands of years -
and they have done so in ways that have transformed, and
continue to transform, the very conditions of life
on this planet.

You now see signs such as, "The water, fish, and soil
of this Lake are contaminated with cancer causing
chemicals."

Public faith in the latest technologies is sometimes
shaken by technological disasters, such as the
destruction of the "unsinkable" passenger liner
Titanic in 1912, the airship Hindenburg in 1937,
and the space shuttle Challenger in 1986.

Such disasters capture public attention because of
their dramatic nature, while more serious but less
visible disasters - such as the pollution of the
environment with pesticides and other noxious
chemicals - tends to be overlooked.

In preindustrial societies, human technology made
comparatively little demand on the resources of the
environment. Populations were relatively small, and
for the most part people's material needs were fairly
limited, and easily satisfied. Industrialisation, however,
has brought about rapid population increases - and also
an apparently endless expansion in people's material
desires.

If the same voracious pattern persists in the future,
in other industrialising societies,
an expanding demand will well exceed the planet's
finite resources.

We forget that we ultimately
are dependent on the environment for our survival as any
other species. If we continue to cause environmental damage
we run the risk of destroying the environment upon which
we depend for our survival.

The "Climate Debate" is ridiculous? Only to people
who believe that we have infinite resources, and that
we can keep on doing what we're currently doing with
no ill effects whatsoever.