It keeps happening, and yet it keeps happening.
When will the debate ever end, when will we grow a clue and deal with the fruit all sour and such.
The world is in crisis, and if it isn't by any stretch of the imagination, (imaginary) in this crisis described by both scientist and polititian distortion and correction needed, then if the world is not in crisis then surley we inhabitants are.
I reffer of course to the ongioing (all heaven knows why we have not as yet come to consensus, a consensus that no longer faulters) of world, global, planetary warming, heating, suffocating.
WE must come to the final conclusion and stop all the unneccessary back and forth, come to a conclusion already.
And stop calling each other liars and *******s.
There is no more money to be made with oil already, it is gone it is spent, it wont last till next week let alone forever, let alone tomorrow.
We have lost our colective minds if we keep the arguement going, why are people arguing for something that does not really matter, we will burn this world so bright it will either choke the world, choke us, or not choke at all and just heal.
And if there is any argumement for global warming to continue it is based solely upon the fact that the fumes and exhausts of our uncleaness will have direct suffocating and exhausting effect upon us as human beings health and growth. There are no more bees by the way.
So i find the agument for the either heating or not of our world mute because we are going to burn it all out, every last fossil we can get our dirty greedy hands upon, if it is not already spent then we are already in debt, a debt that cannot be paid because the very substances that we are choking ourselves with is gone. All the oil, the gas, the coal, not so many more etc s,
Either we are going to have killed ourselves before all is used up, or we wont have, either way it has all been already bought and sold a hundred times over, it is spent, and when people buy something it will already be being used.
The only future market there ever will exist is in renewable resources, because the old maket has already gone bust, beacause we may have priced ourselves or others out of the market also, do i make myself clear?, all those dirty fossils have been used up, it is all gone.
To have easy means to making fire will never be reserved, we have already burnt it all away. Do i make myself clear? It is all gone and either us by its way or not, but gone it is.
Whether we will be healthy enough to embrace the new markets that will left come from new science and newer research goings on into how we produce renewable but clean energy we can only guess at.
For a always outdated technology driven society, we dont catch up very easily, so we have not even caught up to the fact that it is already over.
The age of fossil fules is already to late, is dead.
We are out of time, IT IS TO LATE, the deed has been done.
Waste of an aguement, and this constant going back and forth ("we are heating up dangerously", "no we are not") is utterly ridiculous.
Whether we will die this way is already debited from out account.
Now on to the moral question the moral ethical argument that is left.
For morality is all we have left, are we going into this bright burning future blind or are we actually going to ask ourselves something of value before we die forever dirty or live for tomorrow clean.
Do we go down fightling what we must see is as unclean?
The fumes of combustion kills, it breeds death, it is not healthy, it is dirty, it is unclean, it kills US.
So why are we capitulating it, and ******* deffending it?
I know its dirty, but because the scientists says it is and we 'should' stop (to late) and it is easier to not even think about the inevitabilty of the need for a market of renewable resource, but because someone is telling me to care about my future we should suspect them, because they tell me something that would be good to do, i must fight them, all because they are telling me something that is for my health, a 'should', i find ridiculous.
Would anyone in their right mind think that carbon monoxide is nice to breath, dont they see that it will kill them, dont we know that it is dirty.
The moral of the story, that we need the moral, do we live by this morality of clean unclean or do we die ignoring the capasicty to moralise and know something is bad and yet do nothing to stop it?
Not curb it, STOP IT. I would say before it is to late, but lets face it we change slowly and if we are still fighting the change, then IT IS TO LATE.
WE have either killed ourselves first, or it doesn't matter because we have run out before we get the chance to kill ourselves.
We have death, allways shortlived, or we have life forever appreciated.
The way in which we conduct this time we have left, do we fight for cleanliness or do we accept the filth? Moralising all the way, for the future is already printed on the cent.
What have we left but the moral opbjection of inevitability.
Should we not at least go down into death believing that we can change something from grot into life?
The moral come, why are we still defending/debating something that if it is not already dead and used up is down right filthy?
Why are there still people and governments out there who find some sort of queer power in defending something not just deadly but filthy and already dead and spent and gone? Do I make myself clear?
Why would anyone defend pollution, they would not breath direct from an exhaust drink from a sewer pipe why are they defending it, why but that it is theri choce to disagree with those who would ultimately clean up that air and water?
Do I make myself clear i dont understand the need to argue this point.
But to moralise it and try to change things friom dirty to clean.

Is the greenhouse,. global warming a moral issue, where there dosen't seem a quick need for answer and action, or a fundamental issue where there needs to be instant need for action.
The action precedes the moral.
And if we are TO LATE, dose the moral even matter any more?
Do I make my point?

And just to leave you off.
The point i have lost my way through the diatribe i just perofrmed was meant from these words and please feel free to show your thoughts and my possible intention badly reasoned here now form these;

Holy Bible NIV; Gen 2, 15 'The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and take care of it'

Holy Bible KJ Gen 2, 15 'And the LORD God took the man, and put him intot he garden of Eden to dress it an dto keep it'

There are others i wanted to put put but dont know if the arguemnts are differnt from the main intent of this post but any way,

Holy Bible NIV Gen 1, 28 ' God blessed them and said to them, "Be friutful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that move son the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has friut with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground- everything that has breath of life in it- I give every green plant for food. And it was so.'

Holy Bible KJ Gen 1, 28 'And God blessed them, and God siad unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominione over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the friut of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the aor, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Alot there, do your best.

Is the only question left whether we have ethics at all and whether they are strong enough to finaly agree we are dirty and something needs to be doen to clean us up, the fact we are to late only matter so much as we choose to not agree we are dirty.

GRUNT

Are morals as dead as we are if we keep on arguing a mute point?
It is dirty, it is over, it is already gone, are we only able to keep ourselves alive by morality and if so why aren't we all agreed it is moraly wrong to make dirty and dead and over and gone?

Do I make my point? I doubt it very well.