[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If you want to be alarmist, worry about nanotechnology[/quote]
im not attempting to change subject, but what’s to worry about nanotechnology?
I’m really amazed to see some of the responses on this thread. Lets assume that all these alarmist theories on global warming are crap. These pseudo-environmentalists are out to gain advantage from exploiting fear.
Given all this, we still know that the rate at which we are changing our environment is bound to have an effect sooner or later. We just don’t know how much and how soon. Moreover, given the amount of computing resources and the state of the technology in this field, we are not going to get any predictions with 100% accuracy. So, does that give us the excuse to wait for the day when the shit hits the fan. Instead of trying to debunk the theories if all of us can do whatever little we can do to help our environment, not only will we preserve the ecosystem but our health as well.
And what’s with the crap suggesting that caring about the environment is non-macho. Seriously, do you really think don’t-give-a-shit attitude makes someone look cool.
Not everything about the environment is a liberal conspiracy.
chints: Caring about the environment doesn’t make you a pussy. What does make you a pussy is saying that we are all going to die unless we bend over and receive the Kyoto Accord in our asses. Are we changing our environment? Of course we are. All these roads didn’t used to be here, there’s smog in LA and just about every major city to some degree, the list goes on and on. However – and this is the important part – the fact that things are a little different in some places doesn’t make them catastrophy-inducing.
Americans are not killing Mother Earth. She is getting a suntan right now (like always) and doesn’t care about a few insects on her surface.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
If you want to be alarmist, worry about nanotechnology
im not attempting to change subject, but what’s to worry about nanotechnology?[/quote]
I’ll take this one, BB. Do a google search for “grey goo” and “catastrophe” and you will come across how some folks have theorized that out-of-control self-replicating nanobots might grow into “The Blob” from the movies and wreak havoc like some kind of drunken Godzilla stumbling through Tokyo.
Pretty cool, huh?
hspder- chronic respiratory diseases are the result of the Pussification (de-T-manization) of our society. Let kids go out an play in the dirt, where the icky stuff is, which they develop anti-bodies to, and don’t get asthma, or so the theory goes.
Enough with the semi-eco agiprop- we buy the oil there because at some ridiculously low extraction cost, it’s the eco-friendliest place to get it.
As far as the fascist blah, blah, blah, it nothing a whiff of grapeshot across the bow can’t solve, provided we have the will to do so. What if the US of A dedicated itself to building up an oil reserve sufficient to last us through any disruptions during the time it would require us to TAKE, yes TAKE, saudi oil production facilities intact. Croak, frogs, Croak, and then cut a deal- on the sly of course. Attitudes might change, no?
deanosumo- Pop Quiz.
What are the world’s two most populous nations.
What are they doing presently?
Did either sign the Kyoto Treaty?
How many Frog-Kraut love-ins, population wise, would fit therein?
How many coal-fired power plants does China intend to build in the near future?
BTW- the pursuit of of the allmightly $, filthy lucre if you will, is infinitely purer than the pursuit of power, which in the end is what the sogenannte Ecos are all about. If you don’t think so then I suggest that you visit any nation formerly under the ‘protection’ from capitalists of the ehmaliger Soviet Union and notice the exquisite detail they paid to the enviroment, in the pursuit of power. Bring a plenty of bottled water and a respirator, or a Geiger counter if you visit a certain part of the Ukrane. The silence of the left on this is well, …deafening.
China and India- best of friends BTW.
Industrializing.
Of course not.
About 17, give or take an Alsace or Lorraine, certainly not worth fighting over.
The number 576 comes to mind- I’m quite sure it’s over 500.
Kyoto- an ant farting in a windstorm.
Sorry for being such a caustic bastard, but these are the kinds of things I read about with too much time on my hands.
Well, actually, China is planning to go with nuclear plants in a pretty large way.
Anyway, this part of the argument is fascinating. Nations that are FINALLY getting the chance to become industrialized world powers are being used as “reasons” why we should not behave responsibly. These are traditionally poor or backward places, can we not do better with all our resources and technology?
I’m amazed that people view concerns about the environment as some vast anti-american conspiracy. Don’t be stupid.
I’m amazed that the fact that we’ve overrun the entire planet with roads, killed off an amazing number of species of plant and animal and have huge factories belching out all types of pollutants doesn’t strike anybody as something that can’t be done with impunity forever. Don’t be stupid.
There was a time that farmers used DDT because it was economically feasible. Do you remember the repercussions of that? Simple economic feasibility and profits are not a good measure of whether something is appropriate. It is unable to cope with damages or risks that are not associated with the business in terms of responsibility or cost. Don’t be stupid.
Please notice, I’m not claiming the world is going to end anytime soon, or that I know that we’ve unbalanced anything as of yet. However, I hope you will concede that by the time we have clear evidence it may be too late to take corrective action.
Profit, which so many of you elevate to the status of arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, is simply sanitized greed. The fact that it has been repackaged and given a paint job doesn’t mean it should elevated to the status of a virtue.
Finally, no, this doesn’t mean I’m against profits per se or that I am against a market economy. Don’t be stupid.
[quote]vroom wrote:
There was a time that farmers used DDT because it was economically feasible. Do you remember the repercussions of that? [/quote]
Yes, since it was banned millions of people have died from malaria.
Well apparently nobody read the FAQ link I posted earlier.
Here are the simple answers. If you want the detailed answers, follow the link.
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67
A Guide to Global Warming - Questions and Answers on Climate Change
January 15, 2000
Introduction
For well over a decade, the George C. Marshall Institute has been addressing the studies, the speculation on hazards, the many efforts to predict, and the theories supporting fear of human-made global climate change.
The George C. Marshall Institute believes that public discussion of human-made global warming as a world encompassing problem may be a clear example of multiple “detail solutions” being proposed before a sound scientific definition of the problem, or even a recognition of the problem’s existeence, has been established. Accordingly, the Institute has compiled a list of the questions commonly posed about global warming. The Institute, using well founded knowledge of the present state of the art, has composed a response to these questions that summarizes today’s knowledge and assesses the task ahead to provide an answer. It is the Institute’s hope that this effort will help the United States determine how best to acquire a valid scientific foundation that can then support sound public policy.
One note of caution. Concerns about global climate change are particularly complex as they touch on climate science, economics, societal response to climate change, and other issues. In order to prepare a guide that is accessible to a general audience, some simplification is inevitable. For this reason, references to the technical literature have been provided in the endnotes for those interested in further study.
The Board of Directors
- What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is natural and necessary for life on Earth.
- What will be the effect on global climate of increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the air?
Nobody knows for sure.
- Has the earth’s temperature increased over the last 100 years in step with increasing atmospheric CO2?
No.
- Has the earth’s temperature increased over the past two decades?
Very little, by 0.05 C per decade in the lower atmosphere.
- How precise are measurements of the earth’s temperature?
Temperatures taken by satellites are very precise; those taken from ground stations are less so.
- Is it possible that human-made global warming is occurring, but is masked by the cooling effect of air pollution?
This is not likely.
- What does the record of past climates show about the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in global temperature?
The records show that changes in global temperature do not always follow changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
- How much does the global climate vary naturally?
Natural climate changes can occur rapidly.
- What influence does the sun have on global climate change?
Scientists are studying this question with great care. It now seems that the sun has a significant influence on climate.
- What is the greenhouse “fingerprint”?
It is a unique pattern of changing climate whose detection would suggest that recent warming is caused by greenhouse gases from human activities, as opposed to natural processes.
- Are computer simulations of the earth’s climate accurate?
No.
- How much will the earth’s temperature rise if the amount of human-made CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase in the next 100 years?
There is no definitive answer to this question at present.
- Will the earth’s climate change in other ways?
Predictions of changes in other aspects of climate, such as precipitation and sea-level rise, are even more uncertain than the projections of global temperature.
- Will global warming produce a rise in sea level and cause major flooding?
As computer simulations have become more sophisticated, projections of rising sea levels have become much smaller.
- Will global warming produce more violent storms?
This is not likely.
- Will global warming cause the spread of infectious diseases?
This is not likely.
- Is there a consensus among climate scientists that greenhouse warming from human activities is a major threat?
No. Science is not aimed at building a politically potent consensus over questions of public policy.
- Does the threat of major climate change justify drastic reductions in CO2 emissions by the United States and other nations?
No.
- Is there a clear policy on climate change and CO2 emissions which makes sense based on our current knowledge?
We have at least 25 years to research this issue before CO2 emission cuts need to be considered.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
chints: Caring about the environment doesn’t make you a pussy. What does make you a pussy is saying that we are all going to die unless we bend over and receive the Kyoto Accord in our asses…[/quote]
I never said to blindly accept anything and everything that is said or written about the environment. If you are going to take the Kyoto accord with a pinch of salt then treat what the oil companies and other money-hoarding industrialists the same way.
Things are not catastophe inducing yet. Sure, I’ll give you that. Now, just because things are not in-your-face palpable yet doesn’t mean we can ignore all warning signs. If you can’t accept the models and simulations predicting harm to the environment, then you can’t accept all the other junkies out there saying nothing is wrong either.
My point is you can’t ignore the warning signs (for example, average drop in winter temperature in Tibet over the last 5 yrs, snow in the Middle East etc). It hasn’t reached catastrophic levels yet but what are we waiting for? We have to start accepting responsibility for our actions.
No, we are not the only ones but a pretty big contributor though.
[quote]chints wrote:
Things are not catastophe inducing yet. Sure, I’ll give you that. Now, just because things are not in-your-face palpable yet doesn’t mean we can ignore all warning signs. If you can’t accept the models and simulations predicting harm to the environment, then you can’t accept all the other junkies out there saying nothing is wrong either.
[/quote]
It’s one thing to take measures to help improve our environment. It’s a completely different story, however, to say that the sky is falling, or will fall, and not even have the requisite proof to make a defensible argument.
How old is the earth? How many thousands of years have there been weather patterns? We’ve been collecting weather data for a very, very small fraction of that time. And we’re going to build models that can acuurately predict future weather patterns?
That’s like taking a hair off an elephants ass and forcasting how long his tusks are.
Do these ‘models’ take into account volcanic activity? Is there a scenario in which, if Mt. Pinatubo decides to erupt again, the U.S. will somehow be at fault?
I’m all for responsible management of the environment. Being around and working on ranches most of my life conservation and management of natural resources is part and parcel to having a prosperous ranch.
The Kyoto Accord doesn’t deal with that. It is a document drafted to punish the U.S. for its prosperity. Why would the U.S. want to sign anything that collars us with the blame and restitution of something that is a world problem?
Heheh, sorry for the off-topic hijack, but I bet they could probably do that. The hair would probably contain clues as to age and sex and health, which in a general elephant would probably give a pretty good guess as to tusk length - unless they’d been sawed off or something stupid like that.
Anyhow, carry on.
That’s OK Mage –
I don’t think anyone bothered to read what I linked either – and vroom wonders why I’m in the habit of postin g text with the link…
Anyway, here’s an excerpt from that piece:
EXCERPT:
With so many researchers in the climatological community apparently convinced of the reality of dangerously rapid man-made climate change, why do I continue to rely so much on the skeptical Christy? Christy is the climatologist who has put together the highly accurate atmospheric temperature data from satellites since 1978 ( http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt ). And confidence in his data is bolstered by the fact that they correlate nicely with temperature data from radiosondes, which are a completely independent measure of temperature ( http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=527&DID=230808&DOC=FILE.PDF ). Christy’s data show that since 1978 the planet is warming up at a rate of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade. The Arctic, according to Christy’s data, is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet, at a rate of 0.39 per decade. But the Antarctic is cooling by 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.
For the nationalistic, Christy’s satellite data find that the lower 48 states of the U.S. are warming at a rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. If temperatures continue to increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century ( http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/planet.html ). Not much of a crisis. Richard Lindzen says he’s willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.
So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom?or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There’s plenty of evidence for both positions, and I’ll keep reporting the data and the controversy.
In other words, we don’t know what’s happening, let alone a cause. So just “doing something”, aka Kyoto or other such tripe, for the sake of doing something, seems stupid. When you analyze the actual cost of doing that something, against even the benefit calculations offered by its proponents, it seems ludicrous to even consider it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
That’s like taking a hair off an elephants ass and forcasting how long his tusks are.
Heheh, sorry for the off-topic hijack, but I bet they could probably do that. The hair would probably contain clues as to age and sex and health, which in a general elephant would probably give a pretty good guess as to tusk length - unless they’d been sawed off or something stupid like that.
Anyhow, carry on.[/quote]
You really need to quit thinking so much - you’re making MY head hurt;)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t be stupid.[/quote]
Please do not waste your time reading the stupidity (i.e. at odds with vroom) that follows.
I am the first to agree that the transition of third world countries into industrial powers is not an excuse for irresponsibility. But the fact that America has the technology and ability to clean up its mess, and generally behaves more responsibly than other developing countries (compare the air quality here to say, China, another non-signatory), makes me wonder why we are the bad-guy for not signing onto the disastrous Kyoto treaty. I don’t know about a “vast anti-American conspiracy,” but if you look at the sources of most of those “studies” that “prove” the threat of global warming, you will see that many, if not most, of the researchers are employed by, funded by, or otherwise associated with the UN, which is little more than a gaggle of Marxists and third world dictators who ARE hell-bent on weakening America. Why we continue to allow them on our soil, let alone FINANCE them with US taxpayer money, for God’s sake, is beyond me (They’re forcing their views on me again, dammit!).
At one of those global “climate change summits” (I forget which one, and really don’t have the time to go looking for it right now), there was some number of thousands (again, I forget the exact number but it was highly significant), of scientists with a dissenting view who were completely ignored, apparently because their conclusions did not fall in line with the preconceived notion. The whole thing reeks of a propaganda campaign to me. Am I the only one who wonders why there is never a balanced portrayal of this issue in the major media? There are a LOT of very credible scientists who do not tow the line on this issue, yet we never hear from them.
The point is that, far too often, modern “science” is agenda-driven. The DDT example is a classic. Thanks for bringing it up, vroom.
DDT was banned in 1972 by the EPA, based on highly questionable “studies,” which have long been refuted. I think I’ll go read “Silent Spring” just for old times’ sake.
A scientific review board of the EPA showed that DDT is NOT harmful to the environment. In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives. In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 with ZERO deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today.
The real problem? Keep reading:
Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem." SAY WHAT???
Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said, “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.” SAY WHAT???
Yes, those environmentalists don’t mind the loss of a few million people as long as they think they are saving a few trees. Notice how these types all think it’s the “other” people that we need to get rid of. Maybe the good doctor should take the lead himself.
To state that we have “overrun the entire planet with roads” is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst. FACT: Humans occupy 5% of the earth’s arable land. FACT: You could put the entire population of earth, in houses containing families of four (no, I am not implying that all the parents are heterosexual), in the state of Texas. Not that you would want to, but it makes a compelling illustration. And do you have an estimate of the “vast number of species” we have “killed off”? How exactly did we manage that? Further, studies have shown that the CO2 produced by human activities is negligible compared to that produced by other, non-human sources (volcanoes come to mind).
In short, anytime I see a “problem” whose ONLY solution is a massive left-wing policy initiative, economic or otherwise, I seriously question it.
Sorry for the long post.
Vroom- “don’t be stupid” back at you.
Mature capitalism is Mother Nature’s best friend. Folks get rich enough to spend resources on keeping the place clean. In poorer, i.e. less capitalist societies, they spend most of their resources on more pedestrian concerns, like not starving. Clean up comes later.
What do politicians, especially left-wing ones do, if not lust for power, no matter how well they “sanitize” it. “Greed” indeed.
“Simple economic feasibility and profits…,” true, but vastly better than these retarded mass transit schemes, which are energy inefficient BTW.
Who is greedier anyway, one who tries to peddle me something, which I can turn down, or one who will ultimately have violence done to me if I don’t want to play? And no, those greedy, ignorant, megalomaniacal, myopic fucks, the Alexander Kings and the Dr. Charles Wursters of the world, don’t know what’s best for you, me, or anybody else. They probably don’t know how to proper wipe their own asses, even after studying the problem for oh so many years.
Think about the statements they made- millions of nameless, faceless, poor people should perish because we think that will make the world a place we will be more comfortable with. Syncophants of Ehrlich (Dr. Wrong) no doubt, too stupid to see the obvious happening and most likely too proud to admit it.
My premise still stands- they don’t, and can’t, have the evidence to back up what they say, but don’t, and can’t, know but want us to take drastic action on anyway.
BTW, of course the Eurotrash signed Kyoto. They know their own demographics, and what the hell, if their pay as you go Santa Claus social services net is going to implode, then you might as well try to make Uncle Sam look bad in the deal. It’s not hard to reduce CO2 emissions when your population is declining.
Capitalism needs no defense. Compared to everything else, the evidence speaks loudly and clearly. They just have a hearing problem in the ivory towers, nothing that removing their hands from their ears can’t solve.
Defense of capitalism does not, explicitly stated, mean defending every individual capitalist. Like politicians, many will try privatize profits and socialize costs. Nailing them is where the fun is.
[quote]schrauper wrote:
Mature capitalism is Mother Nature’s best friend. Folks get rich enough to spend resources on keeping the place clean. In poorer, i.e. less capitalist societies, they spend most of their resources on more pedestrian concerns, like not starving. Clean up comes later.
[/quote]
Now poorer means “Less capitalist”?
That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read, it really is.
cap?i?tal?ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
So, after reading the above, do you still think “poorer” means “less capitalist”?
The problem with right-wing, exacerbated capitalism - like the one in the US - is that it livess off the “American Dream” concept that there’s a chance for everyone to get rich.
Wake Up!
There is a limited ability to produce wealth. It’s limited mostly by natural resources, but also by many other things completely out of control of mankind.
Or do you think the US would have exactly the same economic power it has now if it weren’t for the quality of our land (and I’m talking literally, i.e., about its ability to grow stuff) - and hence abundant natural resources - low population density, temperate and diverse climate and geographical position?
Yap, our founding fathers were pretty smart by wanting to steal this land from the Native Americans. Aren’t we blessed.
Does that mean that our system would be able to make everyone in the world rich if everyone adopted it? No. It works pretty well for us - it doesn’t mean it would EVER work remotely as well in other countries, which means that they’ll never be able to produce enough wealth to get to the “clean up” part.
An older, but still very good, post explaining how some of the top dogs in the quasi-governmental world of U.N. sponsored climate research messed up their projections:
When environmentalists pretend they’re economists
When journalists have to state what the effects of global warming will be in the future, they rely on the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC describes itself as follows:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
[IPCC excerpt] The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. [End IPCC excerpt]
In other words, the IPCC is supposed to be a nonpartisan group of experts. They were the ones who concluded in January 2001, based on a plethora of different projections, that "globally averaged mean surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8?C over the period 1990 to 2100.? Which of course leads to mass media outlets blaring “WORLD TEMPERATURES WILL INCREASE BY UP TO SIX DEGREES BY 2100”
Now it turns out that even the optimistic projections could be too pessimistic. The Economist reports that two distinguished statisticians (Ian Castles, former President of the International Association of Official Statistics, and David Henderson, formerly the OECD’s chief economist) have judged the IPCC report to be “technically unsound,” which is social-sciencese for “your methodology sucks eggs.” ( Hot potato | The Economist )
What’s unsound? To see the actual critiques, click here ( http://www.economist.com/media/text/CoveringNote.pdf ), here ( http://www.economist.com/media/text/efhpdoc1.pdf ), here ( http://www.economist.com/media/text/efhpdoc2.pdf ), and here ( http://www.economist.com/media/text/efhpdoc3.pdf ). Let me explain. No, that would take too long – let me sum up:
- They used incorrect exchange rates. In calculating the relative distribution and growth of global output, the IPCC relied on market exchange rates rather than purchasing power parity (PPP) rates ( Purchasing Power Parity ). Now, in doing this, the IPCC drastically underestimated the actual size of developing country economies by a factor of three.
Why does this matter? By underestimating third world GDP, the panel vastly overestimated the energy intensity of these economies. Since these economies are in fact more efficient – three to four times more efficient – than estimated, they generate CO2 emissions at a much lower rate than the IPCC thinks. To quote the statisticians involved, “The practice of using [market] exchange rate conversion is especially inappropriate in relation to projections of physical phenomena such as emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols.” This is because PPP rates better reflect local economic conditions, and therefore are a better base from which to craft predictions about increases in production facilities and infrastructure.
- The projections vastly overestimate developing country growth. The IPCC vastly overestimated past growth rates and in their extrapolation to the future rely on wildly unrealistic growth figures for the next century. In the IPCC’s most environment-friendly scenario, i.e., the one with the lowest economic growth:
[Begin IPCC excerpt] the average income of South Africans will have overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century. In fact America's per capita income will then have been surpassed not only by South Africa's, but also by that of other emerging economic powerhouses, including Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey and North Korea. [End IPCC excerpt]
One of the statisticians notes that, “The total output of goods and services in South Africa in 2100, according to these downscaled [IPCC] … scenario projections, will be comparable to that of the entire world in 1990.”
To quote South Park, “Dude, that’s some pretty f@#&ed-up s*@% there.”
-
The IPCC projections for the last ten years can be shown to overestimate carbon dioxide emissions by a factor of two. I’ll just quote one of the documents here:
[Begin document excerpt] For fossil CO2 emissions, the standardized increase for the decade 1990 to 2000, calculated in the way explained in Box 5-1 was 0.91 GtC, or 15%. The most widely quoted estimate of the actual increase for the nine-year period 1990-99 (that published by the US Department of Energy-sponsored Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre) is 0.35 GtC, or 6%. On average, therefore, the four unadjusted marker scenarios appear to have overstated actual growth in fossil CO2 emissions in the 1990s by a factor of about 2 : a surprisingly wide margin having regard to the fact that trends in emissions for the greater part of the decade were already known at the time that the projections were produced. [End document excerpt] [Italics in original post]
Of course, I’m sure France will simply argue that since the IPCC report is in substantial compliance with known econometric techniques, it’s fine the way it is. For the rest of us, it appears that the primary estimates for global warming have been grossly exaggerated.
All these refutations, though vehement, haven’t really done anything to the statements I’ve made. Again, my statements are not very radical at all.
Unlike the OH MY GOD ITS A CONSPIRACY group which sounds suspiciously like how they describe left wingers, I’m very willing to concede we don’t know enough to make concrete claims.
However, to go from there to the “it doesn’t matter how many swamps we drain, roads we build, species we eliminate or to how much pollution we create, how much garbage we bury, or how much poison we dump into the environment” mindset is quite a leap.
Honestly, just as there isn’t enough information to make concrete claims, there isn’t enough information to make concrete refutations either. Thinking so and vehemently arguing so just shows your bias in thinking. Your raw unfounded belief. I mean, that’s fine, but don’t try to pass it off as fact because you can link to or draw excerpts from those that disagree.
The fact they share your opinion has nothing to do with whether they themselves are right or wrong. They, your supporting viewpoints, may be just as wrong. They too only have untested theories.
Perhaps we are in no immediate danger, but given that the earth is really a closed system, there is every chance that we can seriously screw things up. Given our history, of major screwups every time we venture into a new technology area, getting it wrong many times before we get it right, a little caution is in order.
Otherwise, lets go back to lead paint and mercury thermometers. Perhaps we should bring back thalidomide too. Isn’t technology perfect! And we should let all those companies that go through expensive disposal strategies simply dump waste like we used to. Never mind acid rain and the loss of fish in lakes, fish can’t vote.
I know these things aren’t directly related to global warming, but it shows a history of screwing up. Don’t make the mistake of thinking our leaders don’t screw up any more…
Heh, don’t be stupid!