Originally Posted by IamIan
You are not alone ... I'm sure sure there are many people out there to start off with the opposite bias assuming the other direction ... or who start off assuming with the same bias you have.
This is equally true for both sides of the debate but unfortunately humans look for 'science' to reinforce their bias, what ever the route cause of the bias and in these times with multmedia outlets it is possible to live in a world which supports and is isolated/insulated from the contrary 'science'.
If new claims come up, some will go first to Anthony Watts and others might go to James Hansen. Some are driven by what they perceive it will cost them to make any changes to the way they live, some are driven by a conservative environmental perspective who see the costs too high if we don't do something about it.
Another level above all this, is adaption/evolution and on this scale the stakes are high although some would argue they are not.
Lets take the sailor at sea, lets say he is very experienced. Half way to Hawaii, he hears on the radio a hurricane is forming two days sail ahead of him. He knows it could dissipate, he knows it could end his sailing days. What's important to him? He knows those who sent out the warning are trained in their field. Is there a commercial aspect? Yes, he is going to pick up some charter crew, he needs to get there. He decides to press on and next day sees on the horizon the typical bad weather clouds. Now there is the first evidence of the theoretical situation. Naturally, he alters course and prepares for the worst, he has nothing to lose by doing this relative to carrying on regardless.
This is the responsibility of the 'captain' to weigh up the possibilities and take care of his crew just as a government is elected to take charge of the big decisions. We all know the results of captains derelict in their duties despite their being differing opinions amongst the crew.
Any government today, in the face of the growing evidence (people in this trhead started out arguing there was no problem in the Arctic) need to chart a different course and if they don't, it is either because;
1) they have not been given a mandate
2) they are being controlled by powerful interested parties
3) they are neglect in their duties
To me, it's simple, we are on the Titanic (everyone on the whole planet
) there are those on board who know about the ice but in their ears are those who want full steam ahead for commercial reasons and there are those back ashore, who have calculated that in the worst case scenario, she is "unsinkable".
It's simple, the price is just too high if the those that deny the AGW warning and growing evidence are wrong and it is 'unscrupulous' to stop those who do want to do something about it, from doing anything and it is criminal of those who pay to knowingly misinform the public.
This is not a case of needing to be 100% certain and never has there been a greater need to apply the 'precautionary principle'.
I would be more than happy to read this thread in twenty years and find we are OK but devastated if we have entered a period of irreversible climate change and my country has been bankrupted by a global economic collapse due severe weather etc.
Sadly, I think we should be well past the debate and all dues to those who think it's there duty to squash any action. I think you have won the debate (if the results of the debate where ever meant to cause some action) and the financial fears voters have of giving a government the mandate to take effective measures.
Can there be any claim to humanity having collective intelligence if it is not until we are literally swimming in the results of our mistakes, that we finally 'get it' and realize we should have made changes? Or will it always be that we only learn from our mistakes.
The debate in this thread is symbolic of what is happening in wider society I think. Whilst those of us who believe there is a need to take action because of what the AGW presents us with are arguing/debating, nobody is doing anything much while the evidence grows and that makes it a waste of time. I am not aware that even one person has or would changed their opinion because of this debate. Maybe we are better informed and maybe we don't argue any more that the Arctic is in trouble but we are told now is the time to take action, not when the evidence is overwhelming.
Since this DIY 'debate' began on 06-06-2009, 12:44 AM, the CO2 level was approx. 386 ppm and now we are told the level is 400ppm, a 1% increase and in 21 years at this rate, that will make it 428pm. It will be a lot more if we don't change as fuel will extracted by more energy intensive methods.
For now, the Titanic is being captained by perceived economic interests and a false confidence that the 'ship is unsinkable'. Time for a change of watch.