Wow… all this from necessary-for-life atmospheric CO2 going from 0.03% to 0.04%.
UWash professor of misanthropy Stephen Gardiner writes in the WaPo:
Wow… all this from necessary-for-life atmospheric CO2 going from 0.03% to 0.04%.
UWash professor of misanthropy Stephen Gardiner writes in the WaPo:
“Ethics” is that branch of philosophy that seeks to deal with apparent conflicts between the consequences of actions individuals take for their own benefit and the (real or imagined) consequences of those same actions as they affect everybody else.
This is only an issue to those individuals with the presumption and arrogance to believe they know what is best for everybody else.
The ecological fact is that for all life forms there is and always will be competition for resources and production of waste products from resources.
One organism’s success leads to another organism’s hardship – always.
That’s Life.
Climate change only becomes an ethical consideration if you believe you are *personally* responsible for changing the climate in a way that adversely affects someone else. This requires a colossal arrogance and over-inflated sense of one’s own ability to change the planet.
Stephen Gardiner is correct, climate change is an ethical issue. Now if those claiming climate change is a real issue would just start being ethical we could perhaps resolve the issue.
The only ethics involved in climate change is to make damn sure we don’t become slaves who are told entirely how to live our miserable lives.
If that’s the solution to climate change then the price is far too high. I’ll take my chances on adaptation.
I truly believe, and staying directly on topic, of the failing the ethical test if we do not solve climate change. the prof makes a good argument; but it is of no value, except to further the political agenda of the liberal left. First it is not proven science, unless it is examined and re-examined then fully debated and a consensus of agreement is found by the scientific community who are either for or against the proposition. unfortunately the political left, will not share their pro-science with the scientific community, which would of course include “unbiased qualified” scientist and researchers to reach a consensus either way. Do I believe there is climate change, yes should it be of such an urgent concern? No. The largest contributing factor to “Global warming/Climate change, is not man caused, nevertheless, if any man caused effect it would be too much, and therefor work for a proven renewable energy source should be underway, in order that when it is fully ready for cross-over without necessarily creating an extreme hardship on the people of the world. This great urgency is for the benefit of one man, and one organization, Obama/UN, and the rest of the people of the world can go spit in the wind. The worst lie ever told to our nation and the world is the EPA “Secrete Science” and the billions already lost forever, to special interest people, promising something they know cannot be delivered. The Windmills are not, by no means sustainable, or more effective than the villain coal fired plants. The Electric car? Now that is another sort of Joke, and we the suckers have wasted time and tax money here and abroad on nothing but to fill special interest pockets, and do more to enable UN Agenda implementation.
And all the while, the amount of molecular H2O in the atmosphere has been 100x or more greater than the amount of CO2. Given that, do you reckon that going from 9,997 molecules out of every 10,000 atmospheric molecules that ARE NOT CO2 to 9,996 molecules out of every 10,000 atmospheric molecules that ARE NOT CO2 is cause for panic? Or is it just more Gong Show fodder for the political gong shows that we call government agencies?
If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.