4 ms·

Human existence have a cost. Why you would be more worried about the wellbeing of future generation than the current one i have no idea. Mass extinction can hap

Human existence have a cost. Why you would be more worried about the wellbeing of future generation than the current one i have no idea. Mass extinction can happen without co2 as we saw with dinosaurs and i would rather have a fighting chance against mother nature than to succumb to her. But each to their own of course.

joe_the_user 8y ago
I believe there are resources on this earth for the survival of human being now and in the future. I'm a bit taken a back at having to even argue this. Further, global warming isn't hypothetical problem. The measures that experts and world-bodies are calling for to fight the problem aren't speculative but critically necessary - for those future generations that I somehow care about. I've made the point already that the poor and the more impoverished nations can't pay the cost of global warming - this cost is going to have to come out of taxing the wealthy because there is no other source of resources here. One might think that those with the greatest money and power would be most concerned with future generations - they're already guaranteed in the present so why not think about the future. Evidence doesn't point that way, unfortunately. The current trend for present short-sighted policies to continue and even accelerate. Extreme global warming predictions are fortunately more speculative than immediate predictions. Sadly, we may get to discover how accurate those are.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  The climate is changing with or without fossile fuel, the poor cant afford not having access to cheap and plentiful energy. Again id rather use ex fossile fuel which isnt going away to fight mother nature. It also rather use nuclear energy than any of the others as a base energyform but the so called environmentalists are fighting that and are poltically successful. The problem with this discussion is that you somehow have convinced yourself that you are fighting the good fight because you think you listen to what experts are saying, but you arent cause those experts you are listening to arent experts in what you think they are. Not sure why you think anyone said climate change is hypocritical, i certainly didnt. The fact is that we are not even close to finding alternatives to fossil fuel and the one we have are being politically fought.
  - orf 8y ago
    I think the real problem with this discussion is your dismissal of his points behind "so called environmentalists being politically savy", and the false "we are no where near developing a replacement for oil, so why bother". That and the atrocious spelling, but I expect you're not a native speaker so that could be overlooked. The long and short of it is if we throw up our hands and say "let's flood every developing country with endless cheap oil, suppressing the critical development of greener energy sources" we are up shits creek even moreso than we are now.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am not dismissing anything or throwing my hands up. I am simply stating what the reality is. You are welcome to come up with better solutions for the poor countries but before it becomes anything but intentions I at least are not going to be supporting any attempts to keep them from getting access to those resources. You are right I am not a native speaker however I meant what I said. Nothing false about us being even close to being able to replace fossil fuels and I would challenge you to provide a single piece of evidence that proves otherwise. Wind and solar provides around 1% of the world energy needs even with improvements we would not get much further than 5%. If you don't see the absurdity in environmentalist yelling the sky is falling because of co2 and then turn around to fight nuclear then we just live in two very different worlds. Neither wind nor sun is close. And to illustrate that point this summer Denmark had a heat wave. Denmark who runs mostly on wind had to buy energy from Germany who then in torn had to use coal because 1) they are closing down their nuclear powerplants and 2) they could provide it with solar. This is the reality, not the one you read about in the media who are mostly keeping hysteria to a max while completely ignorning the actual reality of energy. I didn't say we shouldn't do anything, but the solution is NOT wind and solar.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    The climate is changing with or without fossile fuel The denial of fossil-fuel driven global warming is a position that harms humanity in multitude of ways. Shame on you.

joe_the_user 8y ago

I believe there are resources on this earth for the survival of human being now and in the future. I'm a bit taken a back at having to even argue this. Further, global warming isn't hypothetical problem. The measures that experts and world-bodies are calling for to fight the problem aren't speculative but critically necessary - for those future generations that I somehow care about. I've made the point already that the poor and the more impoverished nations can't pay the cost of global warming - this cost is going to have to come out of taxing the wealthy because there is no other source of resources here. One might think that those with the greatest money and power would be most concerned with future generations - they're already guaranteed in the present so why not think about the future. Evidence doesn't point that way, unfortunately. The current trend for present short-sighted policies to continue and even accelerate. Extreme global warming predictions are fortunately more speculative than immediate predictions. Sadly, we may get to discover how accurate those are.

ThomPete 8y ago
The climate is changing with or without fossile fuel, the poor cant afford not having access to cheap and plentiful energy. Again id rather use ex fossile fuel which isnt going away to fight mother nature. It also rather use nuclear energy than any of the others as a base energyform but the so called environmentalists are fighting that and are poltically successful. The problem with this discussion is that you somehow have convinced yourself that you are fighting the good fight because you think you listen to what experts are saying, but you arent cause those experts you are listening to arent experts in what you think they are. Not sure why you think anyone said climate change is hypocritical, i certainly didnt. The fact is that we are not even close to finding alternatives to fossil fuel and the one we have are being politically fought.
- orf 8y ago
  I think the real problem with this discussion is your dismissal of his points behind "so called environmentalists being politically savy", and the false "we are no where near developing a replacement for oil, so why bother". That and the atrocious spelling, but I expect you're not a native speaker so that could be overlooked. The long and short of it is if we throw up our hands and say "let's flood every developing country with endless cheap oil, suppressing the critical development of greener energy sources" we are up shits creek even moreso than we are now.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am not dismissing anything or throwing my hands up. I am simply stating what the reality is. You are welcome to come up with better solutions for the poor countries but before it becomes anything but intentions I at least are not going to be supporting any attempts to keep them from getting access to those resources. You are right I am not a native speaker however I meant what I said. Nothing false about us being even close to being able to replace fossil fuels and I would challenge you to provide a single piece of evidence that proves otherwise. Wind and solar provides around 1% of the world energy needs even with improvements we would not get much further than 5%. If you don't see the absurdity in environmentalist yelling the sky is falling because of co2 and then turn around to fight nuclear then we just live in two very different worlds. Neither wind nor sun is close. And to illustrate that point this summer Denmark had a heat wave. Denmark who runs mostly on wind had to buy energy from Germany who then in torn had to use coal because 1) they are closing down their nuclear powerplants and 2) they could provide it with solar. This is the reality, not the one you read about in the media who are mostly keeping hysteria to a max while completely ignorning the actual reality of energy. I didn't say we shouldn't do anything, but the solution is NOT wind and solar.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  The climate is changing with or without fossile fuel The denial of fossil-fuel driven global warming is a position that harms humanity in multitude of ways. Shame on you.