In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Here are some more notable ones. They aren't alone. Those that disagree with the cash cow theory have been labelled "deniers (Holocaust reference)", "energy company whores" or worse.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tempest - washingtonpost.com

Well gee...those guys disagree and another 2500 apparently agree...what do you think we should do? Stop being concerned? Do nothing until we have 100% agreement? Do something?

I mean to ignore the 2500 in the IPCC would be like,,,well it would be like calling them "apologists" or "environmentalist whores", eh? You wouldn't want to be in that crowd now would you?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

When do you hit "all" in terms of evidence? Do we have "all" the evidence that the world is a sphere or that the universe began with a big bang or what the cause of the northern lights is or that smoking causes cancer or that vitamin C is good for you or that language learning and bilingualism helps ward off Alzheimers?

Having "all" the evidence to reach a sound conclusion seems to be limited to things like discrete mathematics, like 2+2=4 (and Hume even wondered about that, I believe).

I'm sorry for your side, PDS, but there is a consensus out there. Maybe it will turn out to be wrong, someday, very surprisingly. But to say there's not a consensus is to partake in denialism, at this point.

Steve

Other consensus> The world is flat. Blacks are inferior to whites. Nuclear power is the greatest threat to mankind. Another ice age is upon us. AIDS will eliminate the population. DDT should be banned. The bird flu will become pandemic. The Rams would be in the hunt in the NFC.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Here are some more notable ones. They aren't alone. Those that disagree with the cash cow theory have been labelled "deniers (Holocaust reference)", "energy company whores" or worse.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tempest - washingtonpost.com

Did you read the entire WaPo article? It seems to have some interesting things to say.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Other consensus> The world is flat. Blacks are inferior to whites. Nuclear power is the greatest threat to mankind. Another ice age is upon us. AIDS will eliminate the population. DDT should be banned. The bird flu will become pandemic. The Rams would be in the hunt in the NFC.

So what shall we do faced with this dilemma where not EVERYONE agrees?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Did you read the entire WaPo article? It seems to have some interesting things to say.

Like this?

Let us say a word in praise of uncertainty. It is a concession to an interesting and complicated planet that is full of surprises. The fog of uncertainty surrounding climate change is routinely cited as a reason to wait before making cuts in greenhouse emissions. But if we wait for that fog to break, we'll wait forever.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Well gee...those guys disagree and another 2500 apparently agree...what do you think we should do? Stop being concerned? Do nothing until we have 100% agreement? Do something?

I mean to ignore the 2500 in the IPCC would be like,,,well it would be like calling them "apologists" or "environmentalist whores", eh? You wouldn't want to be in that crowd now would you?

No, Jacko, you should panic and act accordingly. Pass laws that hurt the economy, sign treaties that pass your country's wealth to others, and sell little pieces of paper that suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Also, change you lightbulbs.

Again, if the problem is that dire, then we should cease all activity involving fossil fuels. To do anything less would be criminal.

[dartay]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I mean to ignore the 2500 in the IPCC would be like,,,well it would be like calling them "apologists" or "environmentalist whores", eh? You wouldn't want to be in that crowd now would you?

Environmentalist whores - that's a good line and extremely close to the truth in a lot of cases.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

No, Jacko, you should panic and act accordingly. Pass laws that hurt the economy, sign treaties that pass your country's wealth to others, and sell little pieces of paper that suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Also, change you lightbulbs.

Again, if the problem is that dire, then we should cease all activity involving fossil fuels. To do anything less would be criminal.

Who said anything about panic? There is not much happening from what I can see...the forces of inaction appear to be winning over the forces for action..do you disagree? I mean, what are we doing within our government for instance that you think is harmful as we respond to this "crisis"?

Again, your final statement is an "all or nothing at all" proposition...I'd rather see a world that does not work in those extremes....there is a middle ground with plenty we can do that will not only further mitigate pollution but will also exercise cautious avoidance to the threat of global warming.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Like this?

Let us say a word in praise of uncertainty. It is a concession to an interesting and complicated planet that is full of surprises. The fog of uncertainty surrounding climate change is routinely cited as a reason to wait before making cuts in greenhouse emissions. But if we wait for that fog to break, we'll wait forever.

You want to cut greenhouse emissions, you have the power at your fingertips.

When the theory of black men being inferior to whites was all the rage, should we have acted before the fog lifted?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

You want to cut greenhouse emissions, you have the power at your fingertips.

When the theory of black men being inferior to whites was all the rage, should we have acted before the fog lifted?

hey, you are the one who quoted the article to make your point...

(and we can do a lot more together then, as you said, we can do individually changing out CFL's....)

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by dartay

Environmentalist whores - that's a good line and extremely close to the truth in a lot of cases.

Glad I could help....

[dartay]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Glad I could help....

As long as you understand the concept.........

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Who said anything about panic? There is not much happening from what I can see...the forces of inaction appear to be winning over the forces for action..do you disagree? I mean, what are we doing within our government for instance that you think is harmful as we respond to this "crisis"?

Again, your final statement is an "all or nothing at all" proposition...my world does not work in those extremes....we can exercize cautious avoidance....

My approach is not one of all or nothing. It is an approach of limiting harm. It does not doom an entire continent to living in the Dark Ages, by denying it the industrial ability to produce. It doesn't put people out of work or harm the poorer citizens by forcing them on the bus, while the rest of us ride around in our cars. My approach is based on a free market solution to the problem of pollution. It does not involve another department of the government that does nothing but ask for more money.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

My approach is not one of all or nothing. It is an approach of limiting harm. It does not doom an entire continent to living in the Dark Ages, by denying it the industrial ability to produce. It doesn't put people out of work or harm the poorer citizens by forcing them on the bus, while the rest of us ride around in our cars. My approach is based on a free market solution to the problem of pollution. It does not involve another department of the government that does nothing but ask for more money.

But your suggested approach has left us with dirtier air and water, right? It has left us with people being put out of work as the world globalized and as the fish were overfished and as the forests were overlogged and as the oil dried up. The poor are still riding the bus in your present reality.....We need a new sustainable approach to keep from losing jobs don't you think?
I mean, are you satisfied that your approach, which is the status quo approach, that it is working for you(us)?
I certainly am not.....shall I quote more examples of this problem, or are you aware of them?

I believe all of the discussions on this subject of reactiing to the threat of global warming take into consideration the limiting of harm you suggest...why would you think it otherwise?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

But your suggested approach has left us with dirtier air and water, right?

The air and water, in the US, are cleaner today than they were 30 years ago.

Environmental Resources for Teachers - History of the Clean Air Act