Ethics may inform how you weigh the implications and act; or suggestions you might offer others about what they may want to consider and think about, too. Personally, I feel it is highly immoral to "eat, drink, and make merry" with the essential and vital resources of life itself on this planet today and to say "find another planet" to their grandchildren who find they have so little of it remaining in their day. But that's ethics informing my thoughts AFTER I understand what science informs me about nature and physics (which cares not the least bit about my ethics.)
That has no scientific value in this category. You are not supposed to do politics or anything of the sort. Not in this category. Just ask Ray. He just told me so.
But since it is a good question in the wrong category, I the Sage will answer it.
If you steal, you steal. No if ands or buts. You have stolen. But that is not a crime anymore if you are a Democrat.
Is Global Warming happening? Lord, I hope so. But the real question is, is it catastrophic? NO!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
I don't think 0.87 degrees in 353 years is anywhere near catastrophic.
Is it going to be a problem for the next generation? NO!
Should we do something to stop it? NO! And for two reasons
1. CAGW does not exist. It has never been even remotely proven to be a scientific fact.
2. Even if it was true, man does not have enough power to alter it.
Regarding your , "However, of that 0.87 degrees, 0.6 degrees occurred between 1980 and 2000." WRONG AGAIN OLE BOY!
Just look at the original IPCC report. If you will notice the lion's share of that 0.87 was BEFORE 1700. Long BEFORE any conceivable Industrial Age. Now do you get why I wanted you to pin a year on the beginning of the CAGW period? The IPCC report has confirmed what you are saying is wrong.
I see that Yahoo is having some technical difficulties and cannot process my image. So go look it up yourself. It is on page 202 of the initial IPCC report in section seven. again Mother Nature has proven you wrong. Read it and weep.
I got the part of the page that is relevant to work. But check it out yourself.
This question should be in the philosphy category, but I will answer it.
Not really, global warming is a question of logic, does it exist and will it be damaging or beneficial, until you answer that question, ethics and morality do not come into it.
However after you have decided,
A if you decide it is real and damaging, to carry-on carrying-out activities that promote global warming is unethical and immoral.
B If you decide that it is marginal and might be benefical, to carry-on AGW policies for political purposes, or career opportunities, or any reason to further your position, is equally unethical and immoral.
I also believe that to make it an emotional argument (what about our grandchildren) is an unethical approach.
When you say, "...one's opinion of global warming...," you really mean how we handle the problem of global warming, and not whether global warming is real or whose fault it is. How we handle global warming is obviously affected by our ethics and morality. Some people are willing to lower their standard of living so the next generation will have a comfortable life. Others are using all the resources available to live as well as possible, without regard to how that will affect future generations.
There are many people who don't seem to understand the science behind global warming and don't believe that it is real. That is not a matter of ethics or morality but of ignorance and stupidity.
There is NO **man-made** Global Warming and there has never been any.
What global warming? It's been cooling for at least 12 years according to HadCrut3 & HadCrut4 is nearly flat. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
According to RSS Satellite data there has been no warming for more than 18 years.
AGW is mostly denied by those who care about nothing but themselves and accepted by those who do care about the rest of humanity. Although there are some exceptions. There are some people who will say that AGW is real and also say, "So what? Who cares about future generations?" And there are some people who are skeptical but who haven't seen the evidence yet.
Global warming is not a religion that one can choose to believe in or not. It is the result
Who cares? If the goal is to reduce co2, just build more nuclear power plants. Why is it your goal to convert people into believers? How much co2 does that take out of the environment?
It is affected by education.
Do your ethics affect your opinion of global warming? This was inspired by Judicator who wrote, "My (global warming) bias comes from recently graduating from the cal state system, double major in criminology and geospatial sciences."
If I steal $50 to buy food for my child, is that the same as if I steal $50 to buy marijuana, say in Colorado, where it's legal, or, if I steal $50 to buy cocaine anywhere? Does the reason that I stole the $50 matter?
AND, is global warming happening, did we cause it, is it going to be a problem for the next generation, and should we do something to stop and/or reverse it?
