Leadership, Anger, Belief & Appropriate Response, and More than Market Forces…

These are the ingredients that will make the World to shift, one person at a time, then a village, small kingdom, a metro, a state, a country, a region, and a continent, whether small, medium or large.

Without leadership, certainly, there will be no one in charge. The current global governance system is merely a bunch of representatives malingering as industrious and mindful thought leaders, whom I even doubt that they are able to string a paragraph of appropriate response to what they ‘see’ as indisputable scientific evidence. I am sure they are doing all this, in the name of respect for ‘unique’ conditions and economic reasons for each member country; all I read is self-interest, and being locked-in into current economic cycle that has brought us to where we are as the earth(lings).

Knowing what the issues are is not enough, and any measure of belief is against appropriate response. It is for that reason that I do not believe those who masquarade as leaders, do not really believe in the real truth around 2 degrees, and 350ppm. If they did, and would be not just angry, they would be mad as hell, at those who are failing to lead their countries into the required kind of action that meets the scientific evidence head-on.

It is the market forces that brought us to where we are, globally, and not only on climate change, but on the current global economic meltdown as well. Market forces alone, are unfortunately inadequate to drive the required change in investment choices, ROI on green economies (sustainable energy being one of the components). At an individual level, there will have to be, as mentioned in earlier responses, a shift in our consumption patterns, value systems, and level of anger and action directed at effecting the required changes at all levels of existence.

I am angry enough to delay my sleep by a few minutes to write this response, and do MORE 3650 times in the next decade to 2020.

I find it hard to believe with all the evidence before them that our policy makers cannot get to an agreement. We still have a day to go….

Turlough

http://au.linkedin.com/in/turloughguerin
http://twitter.com/Turlough_Guerin

If what you have said isn’t a ‘backhand’ to all ‘non-specialists’, I don’t know what is.

You might give some thought to being less concerned about being ‘special’ and/or qualified and a bit more concerned with communicating with ‘non-specialists’, especially in their own ‘non-specialised’ milieu…there are after all a few of us ‘non-specialists’ out here mate, and many of us (e.g. politicians), are for better or worse, the decision makers.

If one blatantly obvious truth has emerged out of all of this Climate Change stuff, it is that even science is not immune to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1176157). The fact that science is subject to ‘vested interest’, interpretation and that there is any debate at all about rigorous science, puts it’s very method in question…and isn’t that what the debates are usually about?

Oh yes I know it does the best it can with what it’s got…but don”t we all mate?

Oh! And it might be useful for you to learn that the only qualification required to judge is existence…the fact that one’s judgement may be adequately informed or not is relative. Even science must admit that.

I also find it fairly offensive that you are willing to come in here and stand on your ‘specialised’ pulpit, but unwilling to identify yourself.

Skepticism and dissension may be important and even necessary to scientific understanding, as well as understanding in general…but ‘overstanding’ with arrogance and elitism are hardly conducive.

If ‘specialists’ were less judgmental about what ‘non-specialists’ are or are not qualified to understand, then more science might find its way into the community and everyone might learn a bit more a bit quicker.

Bad form mate…

Cheers

Stephen G
Aggravated ‘non-specialist’ Judge

While I am prepared to place trust in the findings of the IPCC, I am very wary of statements that are too dismissive – or insulting – of alternative scientific opinions. I would venture that most ‘skeptics’ are not crazed or deluded.

Skepticism is an important part of the development of scientific understanding. Divergent views need to be developed, expressed, and challenged through peer-reviewed journal articles. That is how dissenting or consensus views will be proved right or wrong in the course of time.

Those of us that are prepared to develop progress in relation to climate change may do a disservice to the cause to which we ascribe should our approach be to ‘backhand’ views that diverge from our own without due consideration for their merit – particularly as those views are often based on highly technical issues which non-specialists are unlikely to be qualified to judge.

Regards

Andrew