I wouldn't say all the contrarians in this topic are denying climate change or humans are the principle contributors. Andy possibly (I'll let him speak for himself on that accusation), but Carlos Qiqabal (brilliant user name by the way ) seems more concerned about the reliability of climate modelling and its input to the political debate.
You're right - My point was a general one for the debate at large. I am tickled by this idea that; 'it's all a lefty, pinko-liberal conspiracy to force people to go live in yogurt knitting education camps', or something.
That's fair enough as we'd all agree it's a hugely complex discipline. However, questioning the accuracy of models cuts both ways. Laymen will use it as a means to confuse and discredit, but there are climate scientists using inaccurate predictions to show just how rapidly change is occurring. What can we draw from this? Perhaps that ever increasing volumes of empirical data are essential to improving models in the following decades.
Also true; but presented like this gives the impression that there are equal numbers, from both sides of the debate seeking to confuse and misinform.
All of the professional deniers are seeking to disrupt and misinform, whereas only a small minority of the climate scientists are scaremongering. In fact, there is much debate as to their having been too conservative in the past, and that those considered extremists previously, were in fact the ones predicting current trends most accurately.
Completely agree with you though that, in CQ's world, the poorest nations look to be in a no win situation. Do nothing then some will inevitably be displaced. Attempt to cooperate globally in cutting emissions and be accused of acting against the interests of underdeveloped countries.
It is a fundamentally contemporary libertarian idea. To decry environmentalists for trying to stop third worlders from achieving their free market dreams. When, in reality, they mean that the political shift (to address climate change) would stop these third worlders from being harvested by the free market; chewed up and spat out by growth obsessed global capital.
Their well-being is a transparent ruse. It is their potential for being exploited for profit that they want to protect.
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord included commitments from developed countries to financially support less developed nations in maintaining low emission economies. This is absolutely right, but whether the aid is arriving and how it is being spent is open to debate. Which leads nicely back to my original post in the topic:
I believe in the ingenuity of mankind to solve (or at least mitigate) highly complex problems such as this, but have absolutely no faith that the political will exists to work together globally, let alone for us as individuals in the developed and developing world to change our consumption habits.
I don't know what the answer is. There seems to be too much invested in this course - perhaps too much to realistically expect the necessary changes. There are sacred political cows that are never challenged in the public sphere. 'Growth', is one of them. 'Progress' is another.
They are seen as being necessary components of our ongoing evolution. Except, what they mean is profit growth for a small few, and the intricately related drive to expand markets. Noble and lofty to want to better you and yours - but conceptually, this is corrupted to the point where it is irrevocably tethered to need for financial profit.
We need to evolve past this, and quickly. Time is always a ticking, and there have been important junctures in past history. What makes this time special, is that until now, we have lacked the tools and tech to effect complete catastrophic harm upon the planet's residents.
The actions of a very small number of people have the potential to create wide reaching consequences - far more so than in any time in documented history. Andy can recycle his aluminum cans, and we can chat shit about climate change this, or that; Ultimately, the only ones who can effect change are the the money men. The only way to reach and influence them is via mass public consensus.