This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Why the laws of physics make anthropogenic climate change undeniable

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 22 by rolan

I honestly don't know how I managed to rub people up the wrong way with my posts, or are you looking for an argument?

You have "rubbed people up" the wrong way, if that's what you wanna call it, by inaccurately commenting on a subject you appear to have not researched extensively enough, this is a debate that you entered into, you have been called on a number of points that are at odds with the consensus, don't be going all paranoid on us, debate the points you make on the merit you believe they contain. It is a common ploy that the apologist takes on this site, to feel all put upon when the number of comments against them becomes overwhelming or the content become too uncomfortable. Arguments here are not for arguments sake you know?

You seem to be questioning the term negligible and linking it to a claim that I found Jos's posts informative. This isn't even a climate change argument.

Well I see where that might be the case, it was a bit of sarcasm, but where the remark is important to the climate change argument is in the word negligible which you feel is the case because of Oz's so called negligible contribution to the problem. I live in N.Ireland, a population of around 1.6 million, so how small a carbon footprint do we leave, on the grand scale of things that is, perhaps I shouldn't give a hoot either? It isn't really a nation problem, it's an individuals problem, but it is at nation level we must deal with it to get anywhere. No, it's all our problem I'm afraid, we are in it together, that's why we need everyone onboard.

Australia contributes a little over 1.3% of the worlds greenhouse emissions (though it has the highest per-capita emissions - largely due to the disproportionate size of the agriculture and resource industries).

The figure sounds insignificant on it's own, granted, but when it's part of a much larger issue, it all adds up to trouble for everyone. The Earth's problems from AGW will not be directly proportionate for your country in return.

The reduction of Australia's emissions by 23% per annum by 2020 (estimated by the Government in the new multi-billion dollar tax plan) will not have a significant affect on global atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

And what if the whole world keeps that attitude? We are all fucked, you included.

I am being a bit disingenuous here. Of course it may give us the higher-moral-ground from which we can convince others to effect change - do-as-I-do and all that.

At the very least it will, after all, isn't Australia a progressive modern country?

However, it seems to me that there are several things to do (stop selling coal to China, close the dirty brown-coal-fired power plants, use our abundant coastline and sunny hinterland areas for alternative energy, go nuclear etc. etc. ) that would still cost, but have a more direct impact on reducing emissions and bring other benefits.

These are all things to be looked at certainly, but the immediate issue is to convince skeptic/deniers of the reality we are facing and stop them giving succour to the ignorant masses.

And, if you must know, Applied Physics/Computer Science double major, though this line of inquiry is starting to sound rather like an ad-hominem attack.

Hardly an ad hom attack when it was you that first raised the elitist spectre of your qualifications in your first post. But I must say, impressive enough, so you should have no problem understanding everything in Jos' article, unlike myself.

I apologise for appearing to be a bit on the terse side, it's the result of banging ones head off a brick wall in the vain attempt to get a point across on other threads, the crimes of others should not be visited on the innocent.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:40:25 UTC | #865876