Climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Mar 22, 2010
4,818
522
155
Man made climate change is quite real and it is rapidly altering the Earth's climate pattens and the planetary ecosystem that is so intimately tied to those patterns that were previously fairly stable for many thousands of years. How this generation handles this planetary crisis will affect all future generations and possibly even threaten the survival of the human race. One of the world's most eminent and honored climate scientists recently gave a talk about this issue and offered some pretty clear warnings.

Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery
The Guardian
Severin Carrell
6 April 2012
(excerpts)
Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen. He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others". Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions. In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award, Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet. "The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."

Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action. Describing this as an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery, Hansen said: "Our parents didn't know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don't know because the science is now crystal clear. "We understand the carbon cycle: the CO2 we put in the air will stay in surface reservoirs and won't go back into the solid earth for millennia. What the Earth's history tells us is that there's a limit on how much we can put in the air without guaranteeing disastrous consequences for future generations. We cannot pretend that we did not know."


© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 
That's a sure sign that the whole man made climate change thing is a scam. You can't win on the science so you turn it into an emotional issue. If the science were strong enough to make the case, you woudn't need to change over to emotions.

You can bet you never heard Copernicus claiming that his heliocentric cosmology was a moral issue or Newton, or Einstein, or any of the other great scientific minds. Climate science, however, is so weak and needy that emotional appeals, personal attacks against critics and silencing of critics whenever possible are its primary methodologies.

Making emotional and even worse moral appeals in an attempt to gain wider acceptance of shabby, sophmoric science is positively pathetic and the fact that you would assist them in their fallacious appeal to emotion says more about you than any number of your mindless cut and paste posts.
 
Last edited:
That's a sure sign that the whole man made climate change thing is a scam. You can't win on the science so you turn it into an emotional issue. If the science were strong enough to make the case, you woudn't need to change over to emotions.

You can bet you never heard Copernicus claiming that his heliocentric cosmology was a moral issue or Newton, or Einstein, or any of the other great scientific minds. Climate science, however, is so weak and needy that emotional appeals, personal attacks against critics and silencing of critics whenever possible are its primary methodologies.

Making emotional and even worse moral appeals in an attempt to gain wider acceptance of shabby, sophmoric science is positively pathetic and the fact that you would assist them in their fallacious appeal to emotion says more about you than any number of your mindless cut and paste posts.

One would think that having Joplin, MO. type events yearly would be a moral issue. That having storms of Sandy's scale every year would be an emotional issue. As would be unrelenting drought and widespread wildfires yearly.

But first one would have to think.

Regards from Rosie
 
One would think that having Joplin, MO. type events yearly would be a moral issue. That having storms of Sandy's scale every year would be an emotional issue. As would be unrelenting drought and widespread wildfires yearly.

But first one would have to think.

Regards from Rosie

Historically, was the Joplin, Mo event unique or unprecedented? How about sandy. Barely a Cat I hurricane and the first to make landfall in how many years? I suggest that you try thinking rather than simply making kneejerk emotional reactions.
 
One would think that having Joplin, MO. type events yearly would be a moral issue. That having storms of Sandy's scale every year would be an emotional issue. As would be unrelenting drought and widespread wildfires yearly.

But first one would have to think.

Regards from Rosie

Historically, was the Joplin, Mo event unique or unprecedented? How about sandy. Barely a Cat I hurricane and the first to make landfall in how many years? I suggest that you try thinking rather than simply making kneejerk emotional reactions.

Perhaps if you actually understood my reply you could see that the fact that it is not a kneejerk reaction is a major part of the problem.

The word "yearly" is not a definition of "is" sort of thing.

Regards from Rosie
 
Were we to suddenly cease all GHG emissions, we would still have another 30 to 50 years of heating from what is in the pipeline already. And there are threshholds which we really don't want to cross. However, we don't know where they are at. Just that they are not that far down the road.

The 'alarmists' like Dr. Hansen were wrong. There predictons were far to conservative. None of them saw the melt of the Artic Ice occuring before 2020. None of them saw the extent of the weather extremes we are experiancing happening before mid-century. And most thought that the Arctic Methane Clathrates would take at least a century to start boiling out.

If one considers handing our decendents a world far poorer than the one we are recieved from our parents an immoral proposition, then AGW is a moral issue. However, if you credo is just live for me, and damn the children and grandchildren, then your Randian morality states nothing immoral about handing our descendents a degraded world.
 
Man made climate change is quite real and it is rapidly altering the Earth's climate pattens and the planetary ecosystem that is so intimately tied to those patterns that were previously fairly stable for many thousands of years. How this generation handles this planetary crisis will affect all future generations and possibly even threaten the survival of the human race.

You don't handle Mother Nature; she handles you.

The hubris of you people is astonishing.
 
AGW can't explain a 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature so it fails as a theory
 
Climate change is a celestial issue. Man made climate change is a myth. Slavery is still around in some segments of the world. NASA "scientists" need to get back to building rockets instead of preaching voodoo.
 
One would think that having Joplin, MO. type events yearly would be a moral issue. That having storms of Sandy's scale every year would be an emotional issue. As would be unrelenting drought and widespread wildfires yearly.

But first one would have to think.

Regards from Rosie

that's called "weather," shit-for-brains. Since when has weather ever been a moral issue?
 
That's a sure sign that the whole man made climate change thing is a scam.
Your every post is a sure sign that you are completely retarded.



You can't win on the science so you turn it into an emotional issue.
We did win on the science, some time ago actually. It was never even a contest with you reality denying dumbshits. Every major scientific institution and virtually the entire world scientific community are in consensus on this issue.

Nobody has to "turn it into an emotional issue", SSoooDDumb. This climate change crisis that threatens our civilization and all future generations is already an enormously emotional issue to everyone who had a heart and isn't a total retard, like you.





If the science were strong enough to make the case, you woudn't need to change over to emotions.
As I mentioned before, SSooooDDumb, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that it has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most of the population of the planet. It is only the brainwashed rightwingnut morons, mostly in America, who still futilely try to deny the reality of our situation.
 
When the science fails and the politics fail, make it a moral issue.
Well, you rightwingnuts are the experts at that and you've tried to do it many times but in this case the science backing AGW has not failed at all, despite what your idiotic denier cult myths tell you.
 
Man made climate change is quite real and it is rapidly altering the Earth's climate pattens and the planetary ecosystem that is so intimately tied to those patterns that were previously fairly stable for many thousands of years. How this generation handles this planetary crisis will affect all future generations and possibly even threaten the survival of the human race.

You don't handle Mother Nature; she handles you.

The hubris of you people is astonishing.

Slogans are no substitute for rational thought.

You really think seven billion people have no impact on the Earth?

The sheer stupidity of you denier cult people is very astonishing.
 
Your every post is a sure sign that you are completely retarded.

Namecalling. Again a sure sign that your argument is so weak that even you know it can't win.

We did win on the science, some time ago actually. It was never even a contest with you reality denying dumbshits.

Actually no. You didn't win. You have been steadily loosing for quite some time now and it has finally reached the point that you are trying the hail mary tactic of making it a moral issue. That is going to fail also.


Nobody has to "turn it into an emotional issue", SSoooDDumb. This climate change crisis that threatens our civilization and all future generations is already an enormously emotional issue to everyone who had a heart and isn't a total retard, like you.

Except that it is an emotional issue for you. Mostly anger in your case; perhaps from sheer frustration over taking such a weak side, but the near hysterical mania you exhibit with every one of your cut and pastes suggests something more than frustrated anger.

As I mentioned before, SSooooDDumb, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that it has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most of the population of the planet. It is only the brainwashed rightwingnut morons, mostly in America, who still futilely try to deny the reality of our situation.

Actually, it has convinced no one but a very select cadre of hoaxters who are making a mint on the sham. But hey, when you are as emotional as you about an issue, clear thinking isn't to be expected.
 
Well, you rightwingnuts are the experts at that and you've tried to do it many times but in this case the science backing AGW has not failed at all, despite what your idiotic denier cult myths tell you.

Of course it has. Get past your emotions, take a good look at what passes for data on the climate hoax side of the argument and then wake up and smell the coffee. Stop being such a dupe.
 

Forum List

Back
Top