Climate Change - Is it the great moral challenge of our time ?

There are then 3 key aspects to this question . There is

1.  Global warming ,( only the Anthro bit) ( Science)  GW  AGW 
2. What we do about it and      ( Technology )( Politics ) Assuming we can   There is to date no agreement about what we can do to change the risk ---as stated   the options are CCA1 CCA2 -20 
3. We Must do ( Moral) ( Politics )  Many like Kevin Rudd  , The Greens and Labor say we MUST do something about it .CCAI -20 Leaving aside the reality that we don't know what these advocates really means on the ground-- for the moment .The advocates talk about " strong action " and imply a tax of some sort on somebody - not exactly concrete actions .Who would have thought the reactionaries would ever use a moral argument but they are. ( see Susan Neiman for anyone who wants to argue that CCA1 is set solutions from science) 

Conclusion 1 : Noone can go anywhere with this because we haven't got past 1st base . 
Conclusion  2   Does the issue have Moral Status ?  Clearly only for some . For many of us No  
According to traditional western thinking CC can't be a moral challenge because men are free under God to act until such time as they know they are doing "the wrong thing" . Many of us have no such knowledge. If your are not sure about whether you are sinning,  you have have no obligation to act . Moreover you should not force the issue as many are doing . Knowledge is not information  so it can't be equated for the purposes of political argument. Freedom of belief and speech are connected .

If you are living in fear maybe your need to relook at your faith.The only way our society can really adopt cultural change is if you can  get confession . Coercion on the basis of your more complete knowledge could rightly be considered tyranny.


The science and the substance in summary 

1. Assuming we can 't do anything about GW , or that we don't need to , is not discussed properly  See the basic physics and geological argument below that GW throughout Geological history that says GW puts more moisture into the  atmosphere which means more clouds and wetter world , We know for example that the many and frequent cold periods in Geological History are Dry periods .      There are radiation and other physics . The common use of montorung and modeling is akin to meddling with statistics. 
2. All the main evidence ( sea levels arctic ice etc and now coral bleaching ( see posts below) A litany of correlations that go nowhere  near causation . The latest coral bleaching change  was stated by profs within the ocean science as something that will recover by itself . The discussion of resilience by advocates of CCA is enough to take me ignore them . 
3. The move from Global warming to CC    No scientist I know wants to accept the nonsense target that is the change to the catchall crap phrase "change" . Its in the nature of both weather and the climate to change . CC was clearly was substituted  for GW and AGW about 10 years ago because the case for acting against AGW alone was not clear , 

Summary

Advocates of CCA and CCA1 completely lost me when they changed channels from AGW to Climate Change CC-, They ALSO can't be taken seriously with imperatives on the ground when they are unclear about the imperatives in the air (My work is with the practical implications of fluid  and gas science )..
Advocates must regroup and answer thinking peoples doubts in ALL three areas  before they will again get the attention of thinking practical scientists.