Page 1 of 1
Posted on November 12 at 4:55 p.m.
I note that RobEgenolf is still throwing darts at me instead of constructively discussing what he agrees with or disagrees with in the article. Presumably RobEgenolf is happy with the current situation where only 6% of the roughly $1 billion a day that goes to climate finance actually goes to helping real people suffering today from real problems. Pretty sad. All the rest of red herrings.
On <em>24 Hours of Reality</em> Forgot About People
Posted on November 12 at 4:50 p.m.
EastBeach - what would you expect groups who's very purpose is to discredit anyone who disagrees with political correctness about climate change to say about groups like ICSC? Exactly what they say. I have tried to correct them but they don't care since they assume people like you will use their material to throw around accusations without even asking how much of it is true (or even relevant).
The fact that Heartland supposedly gave ICSC some funds in 2007 (before I was even with ICSC so I don't have the records to even check if it is true) makes no difference to our actions 6 years later. If we tried to tell the scientists who work with us what to say based on what a funder wanted, they would quite immediately.
What in my piece do you agree or disagree with? That is all that counts.
Posted on November 12 at 12:18 a.m.
Stacey: You seem to have made some unjustifed leaps in faith here.
I didn't say whether I like or dislike Al Gore.
I didn't advocate ignoring the possible problems of people yet to be born. Otherwise, why would I advocate harding our infrastructure for future problems
I didn't advocate not pondering "the root cause of climate change.
I am not a lizard.
My point was simply that, in my opinion, and in that of an increasing number of people around the world, left, right and center, it is immoral to care for the concerns of people yet to be born almost 20 times as much as caring for those suffering and dying right now. That is what the current funding ratio indicates. Do you think this is right?
Posted on November 11 at 8:05 p.m.
Even if the points made by RobEgenolf were correct (and they are certainly not), none of his statements have any relevance to the climate change policy debate whatsoever. All that matters is whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are currently causing, or, in the foreseeable future, are likely to cause dangerous global warming and other climate problems.
It certainly has not happened yet since any appreciable global warming stopped 17 years ago and warming during the 20th century was very modest (about 0.7 deg C).
So, the question is, will continued rise in CO2 cause dangerous climate change in the future? No one knows because we do not yet understand the science well enough to know how to program the computer models that are the basis of the climate scare. All we can do at present is guess the future and see what guesses work as the future unfolds.
In the meantime, we know with absolute certainty that climate change, whatever the cause, affects people, the poor being the most vulnerable. Yet almost all of the world’s funding for climate change goes to the possibility of “stopping (mitigating) global warming” that might happen decades from now. That this is immoral when people who are suffering and dying right now due to climate change are receiving little or no support was the main point of our article. Rather than “propaganda”, sensible people see the current climate funding distribution between mitigation and adaptation a tragedy. Many African representatives I spoke with at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference agreed that the current mitigation focus of international efforts is entirely backwards.
However, that said, I am glad to see it when our opponents have nothing of value to bring up, just logical fallacies such as guilt by association, motive intent and ad hominem. A good start to correct these problems would be for people like RobEgenolf to actually read the article and tell us where he disagrees with the argument being presented. At the same time, he would then see we are anything but a climate change denier, whatever that means.