Global cooling . The climate trend orthodoxy of the 1970s

[Coles]

I agree that the 'right' need to debate the issue of Global Warming and to acknowledge the failures of their ideology, but I suspect this will not happen.

Well, you're not asking them for solutions, are you? You just want them to acknowledge the 'failure of their ideology'. Very generous - shame your ideology is also a failure.

Firstly (mainly just to annoy you, but also for accuracy), I'd like to draw attention to a mis-quote and mis-interpretation of my above point. In saying the 'right' "should acknowledge their failures" , I am not claiming that the ideology of the 'right' is a complete failure. Consequently, I am not arguing that the viewpoint of the 'left' could also ever be a total success. Indeed, how could it be, when political thought will always oscillate between the extremes, and ideally (for the majority), our lives will be lived in the middle ground. My ideology is not a failure, it just contributes to the overall debate.

Instead we will get the ultimate 'survival of the fittest'/'might is right' response that will continue to condemn the poor and weak of the world to misery and hardship. The lives of billions will be weighed against the inconvenience of moderating our lifestyles.

Which is to say, the difficulties of changing the lifestyles of the already affluent billion will be weighed against the the hardships and increased loss of life of the rest of the planet's billions. They're not all going to die, as you appear to be saying.

The lifestyle that we need to change is the one that the rest of those billions aspire to. We need to develop a sustainable civilisation that the rest of the world will still aspire to - otherwise they will aspire to the same unsustainable lifestyle we now enjoy.

Ah right.... A two tier world with limits to the aspirations of the poor. See Ibis, I have a difficulty with this. For a start, it's not fair, or workable, so it won't be stable or sustainable. Perhaps you have suggestions as to how it might work?

[ibis]

I agree that the 'right' need to debate the issue of Global Warming and to acknowledge the failures of their ideology, but I suspect this will not happen.

Well, you're not asking them for solutions, are you? You just want them to acknowledge the 'failure of their ideology'. Very generous - shame your ideology is also a failure.

Firstly (mainly just to annoy you, but also for accuracy), I'd like to draw attention to a mis-quote and mis-interpretation of my above point. In saying the 'right' "should acknowledge their failures" , I am not claiming that the ideology of the 'right' is a complete failure.

You're right, I did read that as 'failure', quite incorrectly.

Either way, I still consider this a piece of pointless rhetoric. What failures of ideology are we talking about? Are you saying that the non-costing of externalities is a part of right-wing ideology, as opposed to a stance of convenience for polluting businesses?

Consequently, I am not arguing that the viewpoint of the 'left' could also ever be a total success. Indeed, how could it be, when political thought will always oscillate between the extremes, and ideally (for the majority), our lives will be lived in the middle ground. My ideology is not a failure, it just contributes to the overall debate.

That's a fair point, but it's hard to see how you get to the middle from the perspective of the left 'contributing' and the right 'acknowledging the failures of their ideology'?

Instead we will get the ultimate 'survival of the fittest'/'might is right' response that will continue to condemn the poor and weak of the world to misery and hardship. The lives of billions will be weighed against the inconvenience of moderating our lifestyles.

Which is to say, the difficulties of changing the lifestyles of the already affluent billion will be weighed against the the hardships and increased loss of life of the rest of the planet's billions. They're not all going to die, as you appear to be saying.

The lifestyle that we need to change is the one that the rest of those billions aspire to. We need to develop a sustainable civilisation that the rest of the world will still aspire to - otherwise they will aspire to the same unsustainable lifestyle we now enjoy.

Ah right.... A two tier world with limits to the aspirations of the poor. See Ibis, I have a difficulty with this. For a start, it's not fair, or workable, so it won't be stable or sustainable. Perhaps you have suggestions as to how it might work?

Er, no. What made you assume I thought we should keep the currently poor world down? I'm not suggesting limits to the aspirations of the poor - quite the opposite - I am assuming that they will reach where they want to go (a rich-world lifestyle), and that this is something we want, assuming the planet can sustain it. I'm pointing out that if we don't have a sustainable lifestyle which they see as desirable, they will aim for our current unsustainable lifestyle instead.

If the rich world chooses, instead, to embrace a lifestyle which the rest of the planet does not find attractive (say one based on austerity), there will be no movement on their part towards that lifestyle without coercion from us.

As far as I can see, the current far-right suggestion would be to keep the poor world poor and maintain our own lifestyle at the expense of theirs, presumably through the use of force. The current far-left suggestion, on the other hand, appears to be that we go over to a planned austerity economy, and have the poor world adopt this model, presumably through the use of force.

If we can do it, a far better option is to make our lifestyle both sustainable and desirable, so that the poor world will join us of their own volition.

[Coles]

I agree that the 'right' need to debate the issue of Global Warming and to acknowledge the failures of their ideology, but I suspect this will not happen.

Well, you're not asking them for solutions, are you? You just want them to acknowledge the 'failure of their ideology'. Very generous - shame your ideology is also a failure.

Firstly (mainly just to annoy you, but also for accuracy), I'd like to draw attention to a mis-quote and mis-interpretation of my above point. In saying the 'right' "should acknowledge their failures" , I am not claiming that the ideology of the 'right' is a complete failure.

You're right, I did read that as 'failure', quite incorrectly.

Either way, I still consider this a piece of pointless rhetoric. What failures of ideology are we talking about? Are you saying that the non-costing of externalities is a part of right-wing ideology, as opposed to a stance of convenience for polluting businesses?

Well yes, I suppose... The quest for profit at any cost has an environmental as well as a human price. It seems self evident from the resistance of the 'right' to even acknowledging Global Warming that right-wing ideology and it's proponents have failed to respond to the issue in an honest or proactive way. And why? -for a number of reasons. A failure of right-wing ideology is it's promotion of an unattainable pursuit of individual wealth. The sums don't add up. There are insignificant resources for this race to be run any longer.

Consequently, I am not arguing that the viewpoint of the 'left' could also ever be a total success. Indeed, how could it be, when political thought will always oscillate between the extremes, and ideally (for the majority), our lives will be lived in the middle ground. My ideology is not a failure, it just contributes to the overall debate.

That's a fair point, but it's hard to see how you get to the middle from the perspective of the left 'contributing' and the right 'acknowledging the failures of their ideology'?

Instead we will get the ultimate 'survival of the fittest'/'might is right' response that will continue to condemn the poor and weak of the world to misery and hardship. The lives of billions will be weighed against the inconvenience of moderating our lifestyles.

Which is to say, the difficulties of changing the lifestyles of the already affluent billion will be weighed against the the hardships and increased loss of life of the rest of the planet's billions. They're not all going to die, as you appear to be saying.

The lifestyle that we need to change is the one that the rest of those billions aspire to. We need to develop a sustainable civilisation that the rest of the world will still aspire to - otherwise they will aspire to the same unsustainable lifestyle we now enjoy.

Ah right.... A two tier world with limits to the aspirations of the poor. See Ibis, I have a difficulty with this. For a start, it's not fair, or workable, so it won't be stable or sustainable. Perhaps you have suggestions as to how it might work?

Er, no. What made you assume I thought we should keep the currently poor world down? I'm not suggesting limits to the aspirations of the poor - quite the opposite - I am assuming that they will reach where they want to go (a rich-world lifestyle), and that this is something we want, assuming the planet can sustain it. I'm pointing out that if we don't have a sustainable lifestyle which they see as desirable, they will aim for our current unsustainable lifestyle instead.

If the rich world chooses, instead, to embrace a lifestyle which the rest of the planet does not find attractive (say one based on austerity), there will be no movement on their part towards that lifestyle without coercion from us.

As far as I can see, the current far-right suggestion would be to keep the poor world poor and maintain our own lifestyle at the expense of theirs, presumably through the use of force. The current far-left suggestion, on the other hand, appears to be that we go over to a planned austerity economy, and have the poor world adopt this model, presumably through the use of force.

If we can do it, a far better option is to make our lifestyle both sustainable and desirable, so that the poor world will join us of their own volition.

Good post, and one I wouldn't bother picking holes in.

[Sam Lord]

Interesting debate on global warming here:

http://www.zmag.org/debatesglobalwarming.html

[wizzard]

Interesting debate on global warming here:

http://www.zmag.org/debatesglobalwarming.html

interesting ZMag link Sam, although it wouldn't be likeManbiot to attack somebody for questioning an 'official account' .

[jc]

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Well, sort of. It "warned" of it over the next 20,000 years.

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

Care to provide the full quote, rather than two partial bits put together to add impact that wasn't there?

More importantly...care to find peer reviewed studies rather than lay-science and non-science print-media articles?

No?

Didn't think so.

Well, try this as a counter-point...including links to some of the real science done at the time and what it actually said.