[Respenus]

Gentlemen, if you would, I would like to barge in and have a say.

Many things have been said in this thread, from both sides of the argument. Yet it does not matter how much evidence you show in support of either side, the question of climate change is a sociological and cultural one. Just as religion, you cannot expect anyone to change their minds unless there is some great cataclysm which will prove an argument once and for all. Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, which may or may not be purely subjective, depends on how you wish to see me, climate change does exist and all evidence shown by the other side can stand only inside its own construct, that is without any additional and different evidence. Yet I'm digressing from what I wanted to say.

It does not matter of you believe/have a rational explanation in climate change, accelerated climate change or just natural cycles. Climate change is a question of human rights and the question of famine, poverty and development. The Millennia Goals were set for a reason, and by states which are far from being an actor to ever set eyes of its own goals, that is power and even more power. Here lies also the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans. It is our different political paradigm that influences our views on climate change and how it should be solved and its damages mitigate. Yet again, I digress.

The importance of climate change is the fundamental change of paradigm in the way we interpret our world. I would like to call it rationalism (not only a method (empirical evidence+deductive reasoning), yet a system of action, a behaviour if I may call it that). We have come to realise, at least certain parts of our societies have, that there are millions out there, that suffer under the yoke of capitalism and economic liberalism that we have put around their necks and the sting of colonialism is still felt strong. Our strong-headed defiance to their claims will change nothing and even worsen the situation, to the point that we risk once again staring into a barrel of a gun. If economic ideology did not have the strength to destroy us all, it will be the question of climate change.

One thing that we are forgetting is that there is more to the world than just our materialist needs inside our closed communities. The governments of the world are meeting in extreme places to show that climate change is happening, no matter who's fault it is, although out actions are far from helpful, anyone must admit that. Even if this is something out of our hands, we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal. There are numbers that show that the billion most poor live worse than any medieval European peasant did (Katschinski lectures in Ljubljana). Who are we to today these people the right to exercise their reason and to live a dignified life, which we defend inside our comfortable and protected habitats, while denying it to those outside.

As I have mentioned, it is the way we look at the world that has slightly changed and that will change again in the future and this is something both sides have to expect. The change is both socio-economical and cultural in nature and will have profound influence on the way our world and the Homo sapiens sapiens species will develop in the future. Why has Desertec failed? The human condition. Which brings me to another point in this short post of mine. Even if we reduce all our emissions to 0% with renewable energy (solar) (let us forget about the cost for the moment, although again, economy isn't an argument that can stand to any logic), it is the resources which we do not and will have even less in the future. We have polluted our waters, destroyed our ecosystems and have come to the point where our food output can be expected to start falling, rather than decreasing. The only possible change is advanced aeroponics with GMOs, something which I am not right not willing to accept.

Even if food is not the question, what about the premise of capitalism? Are we really to expect infinite growth with finite resources? We have tried to combat this with sustainable development. An interesting experiment, which unfortunately has so far failed miserably. As someone has mentioned, it is the number of people that is too great to be supported, climate change or not. How can we expect everyone in the world to achieve a similar standard of living, even under the presumption of a rational individual and a pure socialist economic system? An utopia? Maybe? That does not mean it should not be explored, at least intellectually.

So what have I come to in this post of mine? Nothing actually, just a rant probably, but one which will point out that there is something some outside this world of ours than just economy and growth and that there are human beings being denied the right to prosper and grow and contribute to the development of the common humanity we are all members of.

I would only like to ask those who are crazy enough to respond to do so diligently and in an academic manner. I did not have enough time to present all my evidence, yet I did point out the basic outline. Questions asked will be answered as soon as humanly possible, to other I ask only to restrain your emotions and respond as rationally as possible.