finknottle Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Two flaws: He seems to assume that global warming will only occur if it is man-made. He aslo assumes that if it is man-made and that we fight it, we can stop it - personally, I am of the opinion that if mankind disappeared tomorrow, the inertia is such that the earth will still continue to warm until a new equilibriam is reached.
VABills Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Two flaws: He seems to assume that global warming will only occur if it is man-made. He aslo assumes that if it is man-made and that we fight it, we can stop it - personally, I am of the opinion that if mankind disappeared tomorrow, the inertia is such that the earth will still continue to warm until a new equilibriam is reached. Not only that but he chooses to ignore that in only one scernio does health, war, political problems occur. But that's not true, if you spend trillions by choosing actions, whether it is something preventable or not, that is trillions that will cause cutbacks in economic development, health impreovements, and less stress on countries,. So based on his chart only one choice is really acceptable, and that is do take no action, hoping that whatever happens, it isn't that bad. If we choose acition, it's all bad, we will have huge economic global depression, and that leads to the other bad things regardless.
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Two flaws: He seems to assume that global warming will only occur if it is man-made. He aslo assumes that if it is man-made and that we fight it, we can stop it - personally, I am of the opinion that if mankind disappeared tomorrow, the inertia is such that the earth will still continue to warm until a new equilibriam is reached. The endless arrogance of mankind at work again. Somehow the planet cooled to a degree that created several ice ages and then warmed enough to melt them. I've still yet to hear one of these Chicken Little global warming advocates explain how that happened before mankind was burning fossil fuels. Maybe the planet is warming, maybe it's cooling, but to believe that it is happening as a result of us being here is pure narcissism. And to believe that man can actually reverse the natural evolution of the planet (you know, by taking good first steps like levying extra taxes on eeeevil oil companies ) is just plain crazy talk. It's the new religion....idiotic causes designed to control the ignorant masses.
VABills Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 The endless arrogance of mankind at work again. Somehow the planet cooled to a degree that created several ice ages and then warmed enough to melt them. I've still year to hear one of these Chicken Little global warming advocates explain how that happened before mankind was burning fossil fuels. Maybe the planet is warming, maybe it's cooling, but to believe that it is happening as a result of us being here is pure narcissism. And to believe that man can actually reverse the natural evolution of the planet (you know, by taking good first steps like levying extra taxes on eeeevil oil companies ) is just plain crazy talk. It's the new religion....idiotic causes designed to control the ignorant masses. No that was cromagna mans fault. Cooking too much dinosauir ribs, and mammoth mountains oysters. All those wood fires got out of control burned major areas of giant redwoods. All the biofuel caused global warming, ice caps melted, etc... When things equalized, the ice caps reformed, repeat, rinse and dry. See it's really all mans fault. Or, that's a lie about the several ice ages. The workld is only 10,000 years old, so the scientists are full of crap, saying that there ever was an ice age.
slothrop Posted April 2, 2008 Author Posted April 2, 2008 Two flaws: He seems to assume that global warming will only occur if it is man-made. He aslo assumes that if it is man-made and that we fight it, we can stop it - personally, I am of the opinion that if mankind disappeared tomorrow, the inertia is such that the earth will still continue to warm until a new equilibriam is reached. 1) your first point is irrelevant to his argument (it is arguing rows) 2) there is technology that can help - and his point is why not try considering the consequences? Why fall victim to fatalism?
Wacka Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 1) your first point is irrelevant to his argument (it is arguing rows) 2) there is technology that can help - and his point is why not try considering the consequences? Why fall victim to fatalism? Give me some of what you're smoking. Oh wait, that adds to global warming.
OGTEleven Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 1) your first point is irrelevant to his argument (it is arguing rows) 2) there is technology that can help - and his point is why not try considering the consequences? Why fall victim to fatalism? I watched this and found the very basis of the argument to be without logic for many reasons which I'll skip for now. But for the sake of argument, let's go with the column structure for a moment. One would have to assume (since he offers no comprehensive description of the proposed actions) that in this column government(s) gain massive control over the economy(s). We would further have to assume that if the consequences in column B are so devastating that the actions to repel them in column A would have to be drastic. To match the extremity in column B, it could be assumed that we would have to cut all, or a very large percentage of our oil use for example. Sticking to column B but trying to get out and into column A, if the action taken were to truly have a chance of succeeding it would have to ensure total cooperation between governments worldwide as well as whatever is left of private industry along with cooperation of individuals. This cooperation would have to be assumed despite the fact that technologies exist to circumvent it and despite the fact that the temptation to circumvent would be almost irresistible (heating my house when it is 30 below, etc.). This required level of cooperation has never been approached in the course of human history. No grand research project on curing a disease, no space program or development of a computer chip ever required 1/10 of 1% of what this would. It is entirely unrealistic to expect human nature to reverse itself on a dime. Just to get out of column B and over to A we would have to assume all of these things come true. The argument is akin to Marx assuming that everyone would contribute all that he could, but would only take what he needs. It's very nice, but it is a fairy tale. Back to column A (now with the assumption that we somehow attained the cooperation to jump out of column B's inaction into the action of column A), the harmful impact described by the author here is sloughed off as a nuisance. Bad economy, etc; etc; etc. This harm is terrifically undersold. It wouldn't be a bad economy, it would be no economy. We would revert back in history to a time where many people would not be able to survive. There would be opportunistic groups looking to gain power through force and coercion. There would be violence in every street, disease in every corner of the world and general chaos. This has happened to varying degrees every time and every place government has too much power and it would happen again. Progress toward every advance in technology (whether alternative energy or unrelated technology) would stagnate do to loss of incentive and the human race would be relegated to sitting around waiting for a disease to wipe us out or an asteroid to hit or some other outside factor to end our existence.
/dev/null Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Since we still have some time lef (it is 2 days before the day after tomorrow), make sure to stock up on barbeque sauce: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...ing-cannibalism Wonder if we taste like chicken?
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 OK, I was joking here but it turns out Al Gore is building an army. Keep in mind, Global Warming isn't about big money.
swede316 Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Well...Atleast there's a way to figure out how many cannibals you'll feed: http://www.oneplusyou.com/q/v/cannibal_lunch
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Since we still have some time lef (it is 2 days before the day after tomorrow), make sure to stock up on barbeque sauce:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...ing-cannibalism Wonder if we taste like chicken? Pork, actually. Really. If you're ever offered "long pork", don't eat it.
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Keep in mind, Global Warming isn't about big money. Oh sure. Just because ALGORE's net worth has gone from $1MM to $100MM in the last 7 years means it's all about money.
kegtapr Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 The endless arrogance of mankind at work again. What, you mean the world isn't flat and the sun doesn't revolve around us? Heresy!
/dev/null Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Pork, actually. Really. If you're ever offered "long pork", don't eat it. pork with a side of soylent greens
GG Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Has anyone ever calculated the carbon footprint of an eight-minute youtube video? Is it more or less than the carbon footprint of all those !@#$ing empty soda cans behind him? The video itself, or the whole trip from the camcorder through the internets tubes? The Internets don't use any energy.
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 What, you mean the world isn't flat and the sun doesn't revolve around us? Heresy! Boy, our ancestors were pretty friggin irresponsible. How come they didn't build a big wall around the edges of the planet? What if the flat earth people had been right? The worst case would have been millions of people falling off the edge of the world. Certainly spending a little money to prevent that possibility would have been the logical solution.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Boy, our ancestors were pretty friggin irresponsible. How come they didn't build a big wall around the edges of the planet? What if the flat earth people had been right? The worst case would have been millions of people falling off the edge of the world. Certainly spending a little money to prevent that possibility would have been the logical solution. I'm pretty sure they hadn't invented hippies yet so there was no big push for this.
Fan in Chicago Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 I saw this article and didn't want to start a new thread. FWIW... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm I wish the scientists would make up their minds so I can decide if my next mode of transportation should be a Hummer or a bicycle.
Alaska Darin Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 I saw this article and didn't want to start a new thread. FWIW...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm I wish the scientists would make up their minds so I can decide if my next mode of transportation should be a Hummer or a bicycle. Dr Harrison's own research, looking at the UK only. Ain't it "Global Warming"? Nice job of limiting your data set. Now let's all pretend Dr. Harrison actually proved something.
Wacka Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 He just looked at cloud cover in England and talks about cosmic rays. Why are Mars and Jupiter getting warmer then?
Recommended Posts