tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2262084726703069602..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Denial of Harm on Climate ChangeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74120923239079413352011-10-04T18:03:02.582-06:002011-10-04T18:03:02.582-06:00gmcrews
I do not yet see how you have identified ...<b>gmcrews</b><br /><br />I do not yet see how you have identified a problem unique to climate change that argues that it be treated differently than other concerns.<br /><br />A person is driving down the road, turns a corner, and enters a fog bank. His loss of visibility creates risk for others. It gives him an obligation to slow down. We don't have a need for any computer models identifying the risks created by driving at certain speeds through fogs to know that the fog and the lack of visibility has moral relevance.<br /><br />If the driver should run over a pedestrian walking along the side of the road, no claims about the difficulty in calculating risk numbers on the fly is going to save him from his moral culpability.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10611710956093903992011-10-04T06:24:58.275-06:002011-10-04T06:24:58.275-06:00I should like to add that, so far, the climate mod...I should like to add that, so far, the climate models have in fact shown themselves to have significant errors.<br /><br />The effects of climate change have so far happened far faster and been far worse than the models predicted.<br /><br />So, as is the way of science, the scientists are needing to update their models to take new data into account.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87647524064867197002011-10-04T05:21:26.583-06:002011-10-04T05:21:26.583-06:00gmcrews
It's not black or white. Everyone who...<b>gmcrews</b><br /><br /><i>It's not black or white. Everyone who drives puts other people at risk. Accidents happen.</i><br /><br />And people who cause accidents are held responsible for them. That is what insurance is for - to cover the costs one is liable for in cases where one causes attributable harm to another.<br /><br />You seem to be taking what I wrote as saying that there is an absolute prohibition on putting others at risk. You are correct, that certainly is not the case. But, in putting others at risk, one is still morally accountable for attributable harms. Smash your car into somebody else's car, you'll be liable for the harms done. Do so with a callous disregard for the well-being of others (reckless driving), and you will be committing a moral and legal crime.<br /><br /><i>(2) I don't deny your debating points or your logic. But you argue against a straw man. The issue is scientific skepticism.</i><br /><br />If you want to argue that climate change ought to be treated differently than other actions, then you are going to have to provide something that distinguishes climate science from the knowledge we use elsewhere - such as child abuse, drunk driving, forensic science used to convict criminals of all types.<br /><br />The climate models are not used to argue whether or not we ought to permit a certain level of CO2. Climate models are primarily concerned with a scenario called "2xC)2" (twice pre-industrial CO2 levels) which people pretty much consider inevitable or unavoidable. It is an attempt to predict what we are now effectively powerless to prevent so that we can prepare for it.<br /><br />We know that greenhouse gas emissions will warm the earth by some basic amount. However, once this warming takes place, it triggers a set of feedback mechanisms - melting ice, cloud formation. It also affects different parts of the planet differently. So, there is a question - what exactly can people in specific parts of the country expect. What types of policies would best suit the people of this or that region? The climate models aim to provide that information. <br /><br />But, I repeat, the climate models are focused on giving policy makers data on a degree of global warming now considered inevitable. They do not provide the scientific case for climate change itself. That is based on much more basic physics well known for over 100 years.<br /><br />The claim that the case against CO2 emissions is based on what we know from the climate models is false. But, for some, it is a very convenient and useful fiction and one worth propagating if one wishes to sew confusion and inactivity - to get away with doing harm without paying the consequences.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2886391939226943212011-10-03T20:01:07.871-06:002011-10-03T20:01:07.871-06:00The other day, Chris Christy, the great white hope...The other day, Chris Christy, the great white hope of the GOP, was accused by Chris Wallace and Herman Cain on Fox News of being "too liberal" because he (a) accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, (b) accused the Sharia Law alarmists of being hysterical and propounding non-evidenced assumptions, and (c) didn't think that immigrants were the scum of the earth.<br /><br />Seriously. What the flying f*** is wrong with America? Almost <i>every</i> conservative in every other country accepts those three points automatically. Yet you aren't a true conservative in America unless you are so outrageously far to the fringe right that Obama appears to be a Maoist by comparison? Seriously, WTF!mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4067339272850779512011-10-03T11:49:11.611-06:002011-10-03T11:49:11.611-06:00Yep, I would have harsh things to say about those ...Yep, I would have harsh things to say about those who irrationally or intentionally assert harms that are not real - such as make false or irrational claims about the dangers of homosexuality or atheism.<br /><br />But, with the science of climate change going back 150 years, those claims appear to be on solid footing, and none of that changes the fact of the irrationality of the objections that I listed above.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44114554091587511122011-10-03T09:46:22.400-06:002011-10-03T09:46:22.400-06:00"If somebody dislikes being put in the same m..."If somebody dislikes being put in the same moral category as others who deny harms in order to give themselves permission to perform actions harmful to others - if they hate being in that category - my advice is to quit clutching at clearly irrational straws in denying the potential harms and risks of their actions."<br /><br />And if If somebody dislikes being put in the same moral category as those who joyfully accept harms in order to justify controlling the lives of others, my advice is to quit clutching at clearly irrational straws in accepting the unsubstantiated harms and simply go back to Russia.<br /><br />cheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com