It is damn easy. There are priorities on daily list of papers, TV, etc.
And there is education. And if you are not aware of question outside your garden and only source is mentioned TV in living room, then this is result..

Mhm, I think I’ve seen the same video a bit earlier. It’s probably been the viral of the day.

As I was asking one commentator earlier(& you might know as you’ve commented right under my question ), I’d ask all others the same: have (all of) you read the treaty yourself?

Another proof that masses can be easily persuaded into believing anything.

Jodi, the weak side of this blog post is, that you do not mention the reasons, which make “skeptics” label you as watermellons.

Greens promote subsidies to uncompetitive products. Which is a left-wing policy.

Greens promote bans on harmless things such as Edison-lightbulbs. Persecution of innocents is a sign of totalitarian regimes.

Environmentalism is a successor of communism in the sense, that it is the next-new anti-capitalism ideology.

Don’t you think it has some logic? Maybe in your next “watermellon” post you could try to refute these allegations.

Because “anti-capitalist” (which I doubt in several people, you’d surely call environmentalist) means to be “communist”?

Greens promote subsidies to uncompetitive products. Which is a left-wing policy.

I don’t. Nevertheless, I still feel green.

Greens promote bans on harmless things such as Edison-lightbulbs. Persecution of innocents is a sign of totalitarian regimes.

Approximately 90% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light. Harmless? If you knew the chain of events that lead to such useless consumption you would think differently.

Environmentalism is a successor of communism in the sense, that it is the next-new anti-capitalism ideology.

No. That’s called “common sense”. Communism has nothing to do with it.

Don’t you think it has some logic?

No, I don’t.

Maybe in your next “watermellon” post you could try to refute these allegations.

And maybe in your next comment you could try to elucidate your point with some actual facts.

@ Vitezslav - it interests me that after all this debate you still can’t admit that the vast majority of those who want to tackle climate change or environmental issues are rational, highly-educated, pro-democratic and pro-capitalist individuals.

So to refute your statements as requested:

1) subsidisation of uncompetitive products… ever heard of perverse subsidies (look it up). The whole US agricultural sector is totally unproductive. They receive loads of subsidies in order to survive, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to compete against imports from Africa etc. That’s capitalism for you…

2) promote bans on harmless things - as Frederico pointed out they are actually a defunct technology which is better replaced by more efficient inventions. Hardly totalitarianism is it…

3) anti-capitalism ideology - this is no longer the 70’s, flower-power environmental movement we’re talking about. I certainly am not planning to move to a commune, and I doubt anyone else in this group is. In fact most environmental groups are determined to show how climate change objectives can be met using market mechanisms (cap and trade, labeling products, loans for investments etc).

It’s not a choice between environmentalism OR capitalism. They aren’t mutually exclusive ideologies.

Statements like yours which have no grounding in truth are exactly what annoys me. It’s simply fear mongering - McCarthyism reborn.

@ Jodi. Effective and competitive products, do not need subsidies. Subsidies lead to the “survival of the unfit” instead of “survival of the fittest”.

Countries that subsidise farmers do not act as free-market proponents. Why does government force me to buy overpriced subsidised rice (subsidised from my taxes), when I could buy cheaper rice from Africa? Subsidies harm the consumer.

Cap-n-trade is not free market - it is a government imposed arbitrary tax.

If you want to hear some anti-capitalist utopian ideology (greed,Venus Project etc.), read Mr.Pistono’s discussion under the article “History is your teacher”.

You may be angered by labeling as watermellons. I am angry, when the commies hide under different names. The cryptocommunists are cheating. You are misleading the electorate.

Note: There sure are people, who want to solve environmetnal problems with inventions and free market. I am one of them. But there are others who call for central planning, regulations, bans, subsidies, five-year-plans, social engineering. This is left-wing pro-big-government policy. And I am against it.

If you want to hear some anti-capitalist utopian ideology (greed,Venus Project etc.), read Mr.Pistono’s discussion under the article “History is your teacher”.
Sure.
1. It isn’t anti-capitalism. It’s anti-imbecility and pro
2. It isn’t utopian, it’s very practical. I already explained it twice, but you did not respond to that. It’s easier to just leave the discussion, go somewhere else and calling it utopian again, so that I have to waste time repeating myself ad infinitum, right?
3. It’s not an ideology. Nothing is fixed,  it’s merely a direction, a perspective.

Sorry, I missed a sentence.
1. It isn’t anti-capitalism. It’s anti-imbecility and pro intelligent use of the Earth’s resources.

I am curious, how exactly are you proposing free market, when we know that:
- nuclear energy is subsided by the state (http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons)
- oil is subsided (http://cleantech.com/news/node/554)
without counting the true cost of extraction and pollution, which you can’t see immediately, but it’s there.

I’m sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that free market does not exist in today’s economy.

The world economy is a series of oligopolies and cartels, with the illusion of “free market” and “capital” for those who are gullible enough to believe it.

1) Federico, you are the one who is losing the debate. You did not dare to comment on my latest posts on nano-solar energy, space colonisation and plastic recycling. So you are avoiding the discussion… (This is your logic of reasoning, no mine).

2) I did reply to your Venus Project notes. Just read it again.

3) You wrote: “Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.” It seems utopian to me. Unlikely. Why? The cause of aggression is our biological nature. Among chimpanzees they have no money, bank loans or capitalism and yet the Alpha male bullies the Omega male.

4) I told you you should make a separate blog post about your Venus project. It deserves more, than some discussion notes. It is an interesting topic.

5) Free market never existed. But some systems are moving towards it and others move away from it. Like West Germany and East Germany.

You did not dare to comment on my latest posts on nano-solar energy, space colonisation and plastic recycling.

I did. Right here:

No, it was not. I was aware of this technology a long time ago (I blogged about this back on December 17, 2007 http://www.federicopistono.org/content/nanosolar_-_finally_clean_and_cheap_solar_energy), but I don’t see how this solves anything.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/history_is_you_teacher/

So you are avoiding the discussion… (This is your logic of reasoning, no mine).
I’m not. Actually, I’m still waiting for answers here:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/history_is_you_teacher/

2) I did reply to your Venus Project notes. Just read it again.
Really? I’m sorry, after 10 of my comments with no answer from you I assumed you just left the discussion.

3) You wrote: “Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.”
[...]
It seems utopian to me. Unlikely. Why? The cause of aggression is our biological nature. Among chimpanzees they have no money, bank loans or capitalism and yet the Alpha male bullies the Omega male.

I already answered you on the same page, still nothing back form you.

From H. G. Wells, “The anti-progressives of the early twentieth century loved to assert that “Human Nature” never altered; to imagine that the men of the Stone Age felt and thought like bank clerks picnicking in a cave, and the ideas of Confucius and Buddha were easily interchangeable with the ideas of Rousseau, Karl Marx or De Windt. They were not simply ignorant, but misinformed about almost every essential fact in the past experiences and present situation of the race. (and so on http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/history_is_you_teacher/)”

<em>4) I told you you should make a separate blog post about your Venus project. It deserves more, than some discussion notes. It is an interesting topic.

I might, but it would be much more like an essay, I don’t think an article would fit.

5) Free market never existed.
I’m glad we can agree on that. So what do you respond to the fact that both oil and nuclear are subsidised, and that they do no comply with the free market that you advocate?

Federico, you are talking about yourself?

This is what YOU DO: “See, you did it again. Say something, they answer you, you run away, and repeat the same thing over and over again. Could you just please go back to the original discussion and finish what you started for once?”

Why should I react to your latest discussion sentence, when you only repeat what I have already answered before? You are repeating yourself.

Which proves you are out of arguments. Anyway, you lose, sorry.

How can you still defend your Venus Project, after I clearly explained to you, why it cannot work? Can’t you read? (I am immitating your pompous style).

I will react to the oil subsidies, after you respond to my criticism of the Venus Project!

Especially this: “Among chimpanzees they have no money, bank loans or capitalism and yet the Alpha male bullies the Omega male.” If you deny this,you are a denier of biology and denier of darwinism!

I am the most active blogger in the discussions. Look at the stats. So you lose again! You will have to work much harder to achieve my level of writing.

Don’t be so lazy. Utilise this blogging competition. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I am working hard to educate you, watermellons about climate change. But it is so difficult, because you have your eyes and ears shut. Not all of you. Many of you.

“Look at the stats”

Interesting…To take statistical evidence and put it the way you like it seems to be one of your biggest hobbies. Sometimes its rather about quality than about quantity.
And…

“You will have to work much harder to achieve my level of writing.”

That is your opinion and you are free to state it. But to conclude from it that Frederico “loses” is not very rational.
To give you some insight in my humble perspective: I prefer Fredericos posts and not yours. The reason: you prefer to gamble. All your latter posts are bastes on the assumtion that you disproved man made climate change in this board…Well again from my perspective (and from the perspective of a clear scientific consensus) you didn’t. And to advocate sci-fi techniques we don’t have yet, assuming that they will be developed is gambling with the future of this planet. Will they be developed? Won’t they be developed? Nobody knows.
In Jodi’s post “what if it is all a load of bullshit?” There is a video. And looking at your comment, you watched it. Maybe you should think about wich of the columns you are advocating…

David, Federico’s assertion, that I am not enough active enough in the discussion (avoiding them) is incorrect. It is disproved by the stats.

Federico always wants to have the last word, but he just repeats something he has already said. So it is not worth answering. It would be a loop.

I did not disprove manmade climate change. I disproved the statement, that it is “proven”. And I disproved it absolutely clearly, quoting scientific literature.

Quality or quantity? If it were not for people like me, there would be no discussion on this forum. A debating forum with only one side of the debate present, has no quality at all. It would be just a pre-rehearsed trial.

I am probably the only one - or almost only one - who informs the audience here about the real causes of climate change. Solar cycles. Talking about climate change without discussing space weather - it would be no quality at all.

I do not prefer a gamble. I prefer solutions, that have ben proven to work. Inventions work.  Proven in the Industrial revolution. Central planning does not work. Proven in USSR.

@ Viteslav - you say you are against utopian ideals - and yet a pure free market is exactly that. You dismiss my example of perverse subsidies, and yet America is probably the prime example of pro-capitalist society globally. If you think that they are communist (and subsidies have been around a throughout both democratic and republican leaderships) then I think you are losing the thread of this debate.

The point is that at times governments will choose to pump money into a new area of development to encourage growth in the expectation that they will reap returns in the future. Investment. It’s what capitalism is based on. They are offering these subsidies because they believe that in the long run they will pay off.

Your posts and comments are full of contradictions. You’re so desperate not to give up your stance of “anti-green” that you’re darting from one point to another nevermind the fact a lot of the time your arguments don’t add up. You want another example (as I know you’ll ask)... a major argument you make against current investment in green technology (like carbon-sequestration) is that they aren’t proven. And yet, you base your arguments for not doing anything on this belief that technological advancements will occur in time to “save” us - advancements which are totally unproven. Like I said - your arguments don’t add up.

@ Vitezslav - also interesting that you’re now saying that you never claimed to have disproved man made climate change considering the gloating in one of your first articles…

“You will all witness in person, that solar cycles still do govern Earth temperatures. Dropping solar activity will cool the Earth down in spite of all the CO2 we spill into the atmosphere. I must say this to my environmentalist colleagues – I hope you enjoyed your beloved global warming in 1990s, because you are not going to see it again until the very end of your lives!!!...We will see, who was right. And who will have lost the bet, pays a beer. I will be the one with the huge banner “I told you”.

Sounds like you were pretty sure of yourself. And if you’re now saying that it’s simply not proven (i.e. it could be a factor) why are you so determined not to do anything to reduce emissions. Surely while you’re uncertain it would make sense to hedge your bets.

I’m sorry Jodi, I’m getting OT with Vitezslav. I posted my response to him where it belonged, so that we don’t flood your discussion with personal arguments.

“David, Federico’s assertion, that I am not enough active enough in the discussion (avoiding them) is incorrect. It is disproved by the stats.”

Yep, this is exactly the misinterpretation of statistics I am talking about. Thank you. A high number does not say where the posts are you wrote. and what they are about. If you want to deliver any evidence about it. Go a head, list all discussions. I can name at least one you didn’t continue if you ask me to.

“Federico always wants to have the last word, but he just repeats something he has already said. So it is not worth answering. It would be a loop.”

Is that so? Well also here, look behind what you can see. Does he repeat it because he has the impression you sometimes just don’t understand or answered with rethorics? Then they are repetition that actually make sense. And reading your discussions…Well they do…

“I did not disprove manmade climate change. I disproved the statement, that it is “proven”. And I disproved it absolutely clearly, quoting scientific literature.”

You don’t need your blogposts to prove that it is not proven. It’s even from a scientific point of view only very likely. And some of your scientific sources…well…But I think there are enough comments already that were discussing this point.
How about it actually. Do you think your post that climate change is caused by Jupiter provides further evidence to natural global warming? Just to get an impression of what you define as evidence.

“Quality or quantity? If it were not for people like me, there would be no discussion on this forum. A debating forum with only one side of the debate present, has no quality at all. It would be just a pre-rehearsed trial.

I am probably the only one - or almost only one - who informs the audience here about the real causes of climate change. Solar cycles. Talking about climate change without discussing space weather - it would be no quality at all.”

I can see a lot of posts that have good discussion also without you. Besides this is also merely your opinion. People who have acutally opted for taking the save way and not gambling are not really interested anymore in what causes climate change, just like people who are already affected by it.
Nevertheless…Yes I personally like it to an active climate sceptic here. I can learn a lotabout where the debate comes from and people who discuss in it. Besides you have alread taught me alot about rethorics. Speaking of rethorics…

“I do not prefer a gamble. I prefer solutions, that have ben proven to work. Inventions work.  Proven in the Industrial revolution. Central planning does not work. Proven in USSR.”

Generelizing. A very nice rethoric method… you generalize to the whole of the term “inventions”. I am talking about (as you know for sure) the futuristic inventions you are advocating but that are not there yet. And of which nobody knows if they will be there in the end. How often do I see in your posts something like “technologies do still have to be developed”?
Besides…You are still painting the world in colours communists and capitalists. It’s a bit more complex than that and you know it.
But let me ask you a question…Are you against all subsidies, whatsoever?

whoops, sorry for spelling mistakes…I’m a bit in a hurry

Jodi, technological progress is a physical law. It is the only certainty we have. Maybe you did not pay attention during the last billions of years. So future inventions ARE proven. We know it from the history.

Unlike CO2. We know from the history, that CO2 does not cause temperatures. It is caused by temperatures. We know from the history, that Earth climate is governed by space weather (solar activity).

So my assertions do add up. They are based on the knowledge of the history.

Whereas you want to make illogical billions of subsventions only because someone BELIEVES in unproven role of CO2 in warming.

When I tell you “give me your money, or a big pink dragon eats you”, will you give me the cash? Or will you ask for evidence first?

About subventions: If I invest into something, that will pay back later, it is not technically a subvention. It is a profitable investment.

If I invest into research and it brings a groovy patent years later, it all pays back.

If you invest into low-efficient primitive solar powerplants or wind mills, it never pays back. Because you would have to live 100 years to see the costs pay back.

If you subsidise the construction of nano-solar powerplants (to speed their spreading up), it is a profitable investment, because it will pay back soon. So technically it is not a subvention. It is profitable and it is ok.

In ex-communist countries we know a lot about subsidies. Government subsidies kept alive factories, which produced rubbish, that nobody was buying. To maintain the jobs, you know. So sorry, if I am suspicious about subsidies.

@ Vitezslav… Sometimes the arguments you make are nonsensical. Yes, there will be inventions in the future. But will they solve global warming, that we can have absolutely no way of knowing. We can increase the chances of finding the right technologies if we start investing now though… something you’re against of course.

I think scientists beg to differ on your assertion regarding CO2 not causing temperature increases… but you already know that because you’ve had many a debate on the same point. One which I’m not going to get dragged into.

What is a subsvention?

Anthropogenic climate change is like a pink dragon, i.e. it doesn’t exist? I thought you just said you hadn’t claimed to disprove manmade climate change? Or are you saying that pink dragons might exist? Again with the contradictions! Please try and be sensible.

Ahhh… subvention. Sorry, I see - just a spelling mistake.

Jodi, now you are teasing me, or what? I say this:
1) Let us invest into research.
2) Subsidising nonsense helps noone. Not climate. Not people. Not economy.
3) Scientists say, they do not understand the climate yet. That is all they say.
4) AGW is like a pink dragon, because it may be possible it exists somewhere, but we have no evidence about it.

I have not noticed any contradictions in my above comments. Is it really may fault, whenever you fail to understand something?

well well well Vitezslav…It’s not like it might exists somewhere, it is “very likely”.
At least this is what (serious) research sais: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I don’t think it is in any way comparable to a pink dragon that would break any physical and biological law that exists on this earth. (Yet I’m looking forward to your announced blogpost)
And in the picture of AGW solar panels are no nonsense. If you accept this paradigm they do make a lot of sense and it would in the end help climate people and economy. Why do you always state it as if you would be certain that AGW does not exist? I thought you don’t know either… (And this is what Jodi said)

And at last…Either you are still using rethorics or you don’t understand…Yes it is proven that there will be “future innovations”. It is however still impossible to know in what direction they are going. There are also only human minds behind every innovation. Even human minds have limits. It is crazy to put all our believes in new techniques that control climate or allow us to enter hyperspace and exploit the rest of the universe…It’s gambling, as I said before.

Oh and…the subvention of meat? What do you think about that? It’s bad for the environment, it is bad for peoples health. (Yes too much meat IS unhealthy…) (And bad for animals, but i just assume you don’t care about that.) It is even crazy considering the hunger crisis. It just delivers you your “yummy steak” as cheap as possible…I am against this subvention. Am I now a pro-capitalist?

@ Vitezslav

1) Great

2) Subsidising nonsense doesn’t help anyone… fair enough. But the fact is governments are unlikely to withdraw subsidies, and they will go to support areas which probably wouldn’t exist without them. Of course we won’t agree with them all - I for instance disagree with subsidising agriculture in countries where it doesn’t make sense to grow certain foods. I disagree with subsidising fossil fuels. Yet it happens. You may disagree with subsidising investment in windmills, I don’t. Such technology isn’t nonsense. It may be nascent, but it isn’t useless. Look at Denmark - a quarter of its capacity produced by wind. That’s not nonsense.

3) Scientist en masse say the planet it warming, but there is disagreement over how much and to a lesser degree, why. As you say, anthropogenic warming certainly hasn’t been disproved (and most agree that it is well-proven) so acting to reduce manmade emissions makes sense.

4) Pink dragons may exist somewhere? Come on Vitezslav… are you teasing me?

at 2)

Again: in hot Mediterranean even the old-
styled power plants may be competitive. So they do not need subventions. In the far windy north the windmills can be competitive. So they do not need subventions. (You can get a loan and pay it back with a profit).

But in the Czech Republic we see subsidies into technologies, that are not effective here. Not enough wind. Not enough sunlight. Yet the green politics is subsidising this from the taxpayer’s money.

When they begin selling really competitive alternative energy sources, I will be the first one to buy it. It will lower my electricitiy bill.

at 3) If we see long cooling 1998-2040 I will consider the AGW hypothesis definitely disproved. I even suggested a stake on this. In that case reducing manmade emissions makes little sense.

ad 4) Pink dragons are about as likely as AGW.

Have you`also read what I wrote Vitezslav?

@ David.
You said: “Why do you always state it as if you would be certain that AGW does not exist? I thought you don’t know either… (And this is what Jodi said)”

My point is: I disagree with the Precautionary Principle: “pay now, ask later”.

If I tell you “give me youR money” and do not ask why, what will you think?

You must first persuade us, to give you our money for your “mitigation measures”.

Until we have the evidence, we should do only such things, that are cost-effective. Example: Nano-solar technology pays back regardless if there is any AGW.

@ Vitezslav - I think it’s perfectly acceptable to oppose perverse subsidies. If you don’t think it’s wise investment in Czech (which I couldn’t comment on) then fair enough. Money should be going into solutions that are viable. Agreed.

3) It’s a dangerous waiting game for something that could have potentially irreversible and devastating effects. I’d prefer to act and be proved wrong, that wait and find out I’d made the wrong call. Especially when, as you’ve made clear, we can’t be 100% certain either way.

4) Sorry, I can’t take this comparison seriously!

David, you also wrote “There are also only human minds behind every innovation. Even human minds have limits”.

Now it turns out, how the labels are all wrong. It is you greens who are skeptical. Skeptical about human mind, skeptical about inventions, skeptical about technology.

Already now we have all technology, that is necessary (exccept interstellar travel). In fact it is not a matter of inventinog brand new technology - we just need to improve what we already have.

We have space rocket, genetic enginenering, recycling, solar power plants, deep drilling. It is all there. And the improvement is just a matter of time.

@ Jodi and David

I perfectly understand, why you are afraid to wait. You are being threattened with an Armageddon.

But this is exactly very suspicious to me. Because religions in the past were based exactly on this: We bring no evidence, but if you do not beleive in our God, you might end in hell for eternity. So… the precautionary principle tells me, I would rather obey and believe (and risk playing a fool) than risking eternal damnation.

We bring no evidence…Have you even read the wikipedia article I linked? Does that seem very religious to you? How can you still say that there is “no evidence”?

In this situation waiting and being wrong has desastrous consequences. And to me the way you believe in exactly the scientific dicoveries we will need seems just as much a religious believe as to you AGW. Just that we have evidence (even though you might be constantly denying it). You just have your history and that there have been scientific discoveries before. Although I don’t doubt there will be other ones I do doubt that they will be exactly the ones we need. Like lightspeed or cool new spaceships.
Btw…Who sais research does not continue if we start fighting climate change? Maybe this will give us more time to really reach outer space. Personally I would love that, that’s not the point. And anyway… it will give us a nicer environment as Matthias already stated in “Why I think change is good for you.”

Two things…You still didn’t tell me what you think of the huge subventions for the meat industry.
And…Is it so incredibly off the road to sometimes doubt the human mind? After seing what human beings are able to do to each other? I am from Germany and it is horrible what happened here just some decades ago…
Also, what I have learned in my psychology study is that things like reasoning and learning do have limits.

David, I believe i technological progress, because it is just extended evolution. It does not depend from human character. It does not depend from humans at all. It is a natural law. It is physics.

On meat subsidies: I am against subsidies generally. I said that. Meat should be produced where it is the cheapest and then imported. This is how underdeveloped countries could earn cash.

Concerning the scientific consensus (in your link): The fact that most scientists believe in something, means nothing. In science only evidence matters, not beliefs.

Read Kuhn on this. In each era scientists believe in some nonsense. They are just humans. I Newton’s era they believed in astrology.

Anyway, if you want to “act now, or it is too late”, invest into scientific research.

Anyway, you can do nothing, before you have the tools.

‘If it were not for people like me, there would be no discussion on this forum.’

Well, what’s yours is yours. There would still be discussions, there would be less controversy though

If it were not for people like me, there would be no discussion on this forum.

If it were not for people like you, there would be no <em>frivolous</a> discussion on this forum.

It’s fun though. :D

As I said before. Di-scussion includes the numeral “di” that is “two”. If there aren’t two sides with totally opposing views, it is a MONOLOGUE. Democracy requires opposition.

The organisers of THINK wanted THINK to be a monologue. I am happy we managed to ruin this anti-free-speech intention. And I thank to all of you who have taken part.

Despite the fact I disagree with most of what he says, Vitezslav has definitely made this a more interesting debate. It’s forced me to reflect on my understanding of the topic and refine my thoughts. Everyone just sitting around patting each other on the back is never productive - I think it is good there are a few people challenging what is being said.

That said - it’s better when their arguments are relatively sound (or at least indicative of the scepticism out there) as opposed to discussions of pink dragons.

“David, I believe i technological progress, because it is just extended evolution. It does not depend from human character. It does not depend from humans at all. It is a natural law. It is physics.”

Hmm, call me crazy but I think you are confusing something there. Technological progress does not have anything to do with genes, even though it has been comapared to it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you are referring to is a sort of cultural evolution. Acutally the term “genes” has been replaced by the word “memes” in cultural research. “Whereas genes are stored in our chromosomes and are replicated through reproduction, memes are instructions for particular ways of behaving and speaking…and are replicated through immitation” (Steven J. Heine, 2006, p.59)
So far a good comparision. But the difference is that memes do not follow natural variation. It is impossible to see the development of memes loss from our minds. Without our minds they cannot be created and spread. And our mind is limited. Maybe, yes we will find the right technology on time and I am absolutely sure there will be more technology, but again. Nobody can tell that it will be exactly the ones we need. Therefore also what you say is merely a believe, at least in my eyes. I cannot find the physical law in it.

regarding meat…It is never the cheapest option of alimentation to produce meat. This is necessarily always dependend from subsidies as one kg of meat equals 7 kg of plant mass.

And scientists who agree with a report do not believe it. This is not how science works. They check the evidence and see if it is valid. if there are uncertainties they will try to eliminate them by further evidence. It really cannot be called a believe.

And yes we can do a lot. We can live sustainably and convince other people to do the same. Therefor you don’t need a lot more technology. But to give you clarity about that. I am absolutly NOT against technological progress…I am even considering research as an option.

To connect to the rest of the discussion: I am also thankful for your posts and the discussions. As I said before, I think I can learn a lot from you and see how both sides act and argue.

The last post was from me, David Hiss, not from Veerle Vrindts. We’re using the same computers. Sorry for the confusion!

Veerle, yes I really believe what Richard Dawkins wrote about memes. Memes mutate, replicate, spread, compete. The evolution tree of for instance a CD-ROM is just like the evolution tree of, say, rodents. Or look at the evolutionary tree of Indo-European languages. It is evolution. The physical laws are exercised through us, not by us.

About scientists: scientists are mere mortals and they often violate the rules of honest science. Read Kuhn about this. When they love their paradigm too much, they will twist facts unbelievable to fit into their beloved paradigm.

The impact of your breakfast on global climate is unmeasurable. Even if we stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the ppm are still at 380. Chagning your diet does not take it down.

David, not Veerle. I wrote that before.
I have not said anything against the theory. Just that it also has limits to be considered an absoloute physical law. If it is “physical” shouldn’t it also go for everything on this planet, not only humans? Evolution goes for everyone. Cultural evolution does not.
To name the evolution of a CD or a language and compare it with the evolution of a species is not enough. How long did people believe that the evolution of an embryo represented their phylogenetic origin because they looked alike?
I still consider what you say an exaggerated believe in a “technology-messias”.

And even if it was evolution, isn’t one of it’s most important traits to adapt to the environment? We are living in times climate change (and here we don’t have any scientific discussion) and we are adapting.
Further you still didn’t tell me why our “progress” should necessarily end up in the perfect solution. Also in evolution it happens more than often that a species fails to adapt to environmental influences. They simply get extinct then.
Even if we continue accordingto you believe, it doesn’t mean we will survive. It’s gambling.

Let’s make the progress in a direction that fights climate change. Because also this is expanding. Only because some environmentalists say that we should go back to live in the mid-age, this is not the common opinion.

I am familiar what Kuhn sais about the philosohy of science. Yet I cannot recognize a situation in which the paradigm of man made climate change is threatened by a crisis. The symptoms Kuhn named are not really there. To say that scientists “twist facts unbelievable to fit into their beloved paradigm” is also merely a believe, stated by you.  I have not seen a single climate sceptic paper for which I would not have found a logic refutation by serious science.

Changing our diet? It’s not only abuot changing our diet? Where do you have that from?

Insane environuts believe that a colourless, odorless and essential trace gas is bringing about the apocalypse.

If I may go back to the watermelons after all that debate, it’s rather easy to understand why environmentalists are dabbed as communists. There is a similarity. Environmentalism and communism both raise fundamental questions about distribution of resources. This is an uneasy question to face - as we understand that resources are not uniformly distributed over the globe. History tells us of plundering of resources, subjugating races and nations and use of technology to create surplus. Surplus and its ownership creates classes - one who works to create it (proletariat) and other who enjoys it (bourgeoisie). Communism seeks to solve this conflict by allowing state to own everything and destroying the classes. In theory, there is nothing wrong in it - it is just one political ideology against capitalism.
Things get murky, however,when dictatorship of the proletariat is proposed. It goes back on its root of dialectics, which demands existence of opposites and Nature progressing through a constant conflict of the opposites. Dictatorship seeks to end opposition.
Environmentalism is equated with communism probably because it seeks to end the inequality. But its similarity to communism ends there. Environmentalism, in its core, recognizes the ownership of natural resources as public so logically it cannot by-pass the aspect of fixing responsibility of environmental damage on polluters. The polluters being the industries, corporations and entrepreneurs (the agents of profit/surplus in a capitalist economy) - it is popular to dab the environmentalists as anti-development, even anti-capitalist.
This is a perception of TV-literates.
The two highest global polluters are the US and China. So for environmentalists communism is equal bad news as capitalism.
One question to you guys. What do you think COP15 is going to produce? Anything definite?

By the way, Americans may be the world’s first climate refugee. Please read :
http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/american-climate-refugees/