[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize there was a debate – in a debate, you’re normally expected to actually respond to points instead of taking a position in a pulpit and pontificating on whatever you think your point is.
vroom wrote:
Boston, the last thing you and I are ever going to have is a debate. You quote bloggers as sources for your viewpoint, that’s laughable.[/quote]
Oh give me a break. The fact that a law professor, or physics professor, or economics professor, or what have you has a web log does not mean you get to deride his or her opinions as those of the great unwashed “bloggers” whom you can just toss aside without actually needing to read or understand the points being made. Talk about trying to ad hominem your way out of talking on point.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You then request science, but you won’t actually listen to scientists themselves, so why the fuck should I invest the time to try to emulate one, I still won’t be one and you still won’t listen to me.[/quote]
I requested that you provide certain types of scientific information - which you cannot do because they aren’t out there, which is the entire problem I wanted to elucidate.
And I do listen to scientists - which is how I understand the problems with the claims that are casually tossed about.
Listening to you is another matter – you need to say something besides moralistic posturing once and awhile to be interesting.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Howabout you stop playing the petty political games and allow that you too don’t actually know what effect we are or aren’t having on the environment.[/quote]
That’s actually the entire point. And neither do you. And neither do the doomsayers. Which is why it’s important – because once you move to the next level you’re talking about large-scale policies that will certainly inflict economic harm. Actually wanting those to be based on some sort of good science shouldn’t be asking too terribly much.
I don’t know for sure that when I step outside that I won’t be hit by a meteor, and that would be personally catastrophic, but that doesn’t mean I need to go out and take protective measures that would have the net effect of significantly lowering my standard of living. Or that if I do feel the need to prepare for something or other, I cannot choose between alternative methods of preparation - i.e. actually getting ready for dealing with the consequences of a global warming, irrespective of the cause, rather than trying to cap CO2 emissions on the chance that all the quackery might indeed be correct.
[quote]vroom wrote:
My stance is one of risk analysis. Rainjack may not believe this, because he chooses to see potential risks as political fear mongering.[/quote]
There are potential risks out there. The biggest one is that we are hit with a giant asteroid that causes monumental damage. I would be willing to bet that the odds of that happening are better than the odds of catastrophic global warming effects. Should we devote 10% of worldwide GDP now to building asteroid defense? Maybe. But that wouldn’t leave a lot left over for silly CO2 caps that we apparently should enter into for risk management on the off chance that CO2 might actually be the cause of the temperature increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries and that climactic models that are not accurate are accurately forecasting the potential damage.
[quote]vroom wrote:
What’s really silly is that your camp likes to deride people that worry about environmental concerns, but that same derision is completely applicable to yourselves… your stance is based on ground that is just as shakey.
That’s the part I find funny![/quote]
The part I find funny is how little you understand of the arguments.