Common misconception, actually. You're right about the planet. The planet will be fine no matter what we do. We could set off all of our nukes simultaneously over tectonic fault lines, and there would still be an Earth. So it's not about destroying the planet, really, so much as its ability to keep us alive.
Do yourself a favour and follow Kaelri's links to the website.'Nuff said..
Why am I thinking that Daniel has probably never even been in the vicinity of a classroom where science was being taught? And why am I thinking that "24" is not only Daniel's favorite show, but that he thinks its a documentary?(And why also am I thinking that Daniel believes that when the leaders of other countries condone torture, they are war criminals, but that when ours do, they're not?)I could go on and on ...
Kaelri is correct. The planet will be here for billions more years. Whether the planet can support human life, however, is the salient point missed in Daniel's post.And I don't understand how come conservatives don't apply the logical principles of "Pascal's Wager" to the issue of global warning. Pascal's Wager says, in a nutshell, that if you believe in God but you're wrong (i.e., there is no God), there is really no serious consequence, other than perhaps time wasted in church. But if there is a God and you DON'T believe in him, you're screwed. Therefore, according to Pascal's Wager, it is only logical to believe in God.Applying this logic to global warming, if you believe in global warming and you're wrong, you may be out some incremental amount of economic growth, but certainly nothing catastrophic. But if you DON'T believe in global warming and you're wrong, you're really screwed. Therefore, it only makes logical sense to proceed as if global warming is a reality.But then, look at me...I'm asking reactionary "conservatives" to use logic! LOL! Silly me!And aside from this, I know for a fact that it's possible for humans to destroy the enviroment to the point that they can no longer live in it. In the late 1980's, I was touring Soviet Eastern Europe as a student. And I saw VAST strands of land that was so polluted, that land could not support human life. To this day, there are still towns in Eastern Europe where humans simply can't live because the environment is too toxic. (Hey "conservatives", any of YOU willing to live in these polluted Eastern European towns? You know, seeing as how the earth will just heal itself? Yeah, I didn't think so.)So for conservatives to say that destroying the Earth isn't possible (or at least, destroying it to the degree that it can't support human life), I'd say those conservatives have no frickin' clue what they're talking about. If what I saw in Eastern Europe was simply magnified enough, you can bet that the Earth would respond in-kind. And at a large enough scale, vast swaths of the Earth would not be inhabitable. Global warming is simply a conservative boogie man. And it's yet one more reason that Republicans can't win elections these days. As long as they insist on remaining ignorant when it comes to science (just look at their reaction to Obama legalizing stem cell research!), most Americans will continue to see the GOP as increasingly irrelevant.
... and why am I also thinking that when Republicans talk about their alleged faith in "good science," that Miglavs actually believes them?
Daniel, your big thing is immigration, especially illegal immigration, which obviously is illegal, and whether it's bigotry or a genuine passion for "rule of law" that motivates you, I suppose you're entitled to be as pissed off about it as you like. But with regard to global warming, you are an idiot. Get back up on your "illegal alien" soapbox and leave climate change to those who have the facts on their side. You don't.
anon 10:26There are a bunch of scientists (and more changing there minds every day)that beleave climate change is in no way or at least a very , very minute way being caused by man!
I don't think the consensus view is that climate change is caused, single-handedly, by man, but rather that man has exacerbated the problem, and that man is capable of turning the tide. This is what the Miglavians cannot and will not understand.
StevieI have a problem with this paragraph:Applying this logic to global warming, if you believe in global warming and you're wrong, you may be out some incremental amount of economic growth, but certainly nothing catastrophic. But if you DON'T believe in global warming and you're wrong, you're really screwed. Therefore, it only makes logical sense to proceed as if global warming is a reality.I disagree when you state we may be out some incremental amount of economic growth. Obama is spending a serious amount of cash on global warming. Don't forget, the UN wants a bunch of cash too. I don't believe that man has contributed to global warming in a large part. I will admit that I don't understand a lot about the cap and trade. However, what I hear scares the crap out of me. It will limit any future growth. We may become stagnant. I will have to read more on it and educate myself. Too many of the global warming scientists are now going against the consensus. The ocean did not warm up for the last ten years. Also, man has typically done better in a warmer climate. When I took science, consensus was never mentioned. We would prove things by experiments. There is too much information coming out now against GW. The problem with the GW is that scientists see it as an opportunity to get money. Our dollars.I guess I'm not progressive.Time will tell.
Dave, thanks for the response.You’re right that efforts to curb global warming will result in some loss of economic growth. I disagree that such efforts will “limit any future growth”. That assertion assumes that all capitalist economic theories of productivity and growth would simply disappear if we implement certain strategies to help contain GW. I just don’t buy that. If we implement these policies, people are not going to stop consuming, and innovation (which produces productivity growth and hence capital growth) is not going to stop happening. So I don’t think your assertion that these measures will “limit any future [economic] growth” passes the smell test. (And aside from this, whenever any significant economic legislation is proposed, opponents – regardless of the side of the isle they’re on – always say “the sky will fall!” if that policy is implemented. But it never does.)And I’m not sure I understand your last paragraph, Dave. Your first sentence claims that more and more scientists are going against the current consensus on GW. But then a few sentences later, you seem to imply that there is no such thing as scientific consensus to begin with. Which is it?You’re right Dave, that “correct” science is established by looking at the results of experimentation. But with the scientific method, developing theory is just as important as carrying out the experiments themselves which test that theory. And as a result of the scientific method, science has not “proven” that man affects GW. But science has suggested that the “theory” of man’s involvement in GW is very likely real. And that’s precisely why MOST scientists do believe that man has the capability to affect GW. But with some large scientific questions like GW, the question itself is on-going. And as such, we collect scientific data.And in any regard, I think my original point still stands. If the consensus about GW is wrong, and we needlessly curb economic growth because of it, we can fix that. Yes, it will take time, but it CAN be fixed. But if you are against doing something about GW and you’re wrong, you don’t get a second chance to fix it!!! So, it is only logical to proceed as if GW is real and as if it is a huge problem.
Post a Comment