7 ms·

Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who is refuting this? "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please.

by jsmcgd 18y ago

Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who is refuting this? "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please. The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.

oldgregg 18y ago
I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming. Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism: "Repent of your carbon emissions!" "The world will be destroyed in ten years!" It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists. As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.
- gaius 18y ago
  Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.
    - gaius 18y ago
      That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!
      - tptacek 18y ago
        Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
        laut 18y ago
        If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
        tptacek 18y ago
        If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
- garbowza 18y ago
  There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.
  - rbanffy 18y ago
    It's also kind of ad hominem. Al Gore doesn't live a life of saint renunciation, therefore, global warming is a hoax. I really see no connection.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.
    - nradov 18y ago
      Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very high. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Al Gore's involvement has made a lot of reflex conservatives who previously had no opinion on the matter into global warming skeptics. They figure since a prominent Democrat is saying it, they should be saying the opposite.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  If you are swimming and one person says "nice tan" and the other screams "shark!", I would strongly advise you to pay attention to the second one.
  - Brushfire 18y ago
    That depends on your level of trust/expectation from either parties as well as your own assessment of the situation.
  - sfg 18y ago
    What if you look at the data and find there is no chance of a shark as your in a swimming pool?
  - webwright 18y ago
    If you could die at any moment and one person says, "have fun" and another person says, "be a christian or you could spend eternity in hell!", what would you advise?
    - netcan 18y ago
      Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can. Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Scientific processes do not lead "to an overwhelming support" Scientific processes lead to reproducible experiments. Falsifiable theories. Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus. Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.
- lutorm 18y ago
  "many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming": Can we name concrete names of those rich scientists, please? I'm pretty sure Jim Hansen's gains have been limited to the risk of losing his job and of not being allowed to publish his results. And saying that "it used to be 75 years but people didn't care so now they say the world will be destroyed in 10 years" is spectacularly dishonest. First, scientific facts change. If you follow the research you'll know that evidence is accumulating that effects like deglaciation are happening faster than models used to predict. When better data become available, scientific predictions will change. Arguing that this proves that science is flawed or scientists are dishonest is like calling people changing their mind about something with more information "flip-floppers" -- but it's the only rational thing to do. Second, who is saying that "the world will be destroyed in ten years"? As far as I know, reputable scientists are saying things like "unless changes are made within ten years, we will reach a point where it will be too late to stop climate change from reaching a point with likely bad effects". That's a very different thing. Those bad effects won't happen for a long time, like 50-100 years, because of the thermal inertia of the planet, but that also means we must start slowing down now. It's like driving a car, you'd better start slowing down before you get to the curve, trying to do it when you realize you're heading off the road is too little, too late. Oh, and Al Gore is not a politician. He holds no office, and does not work for a political party. I guess it would be fair to call him a lobbyist, but his financial gain is much less than that of other "lobbyists" like the wall street people. In my eyes, he has way more credibility in his current position than any of those who have large financial stakes in influencing people.
  - viggity 18y ago
    I don't have time to research all of the people that call themselves "scientists" that have invested in carbon credit companies. But, according to this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=545... Al Gore "buys" his credits from a company he owns a financial stake in. You're right, these predictions are going to change. They are going to change forever because there are infinitely many variables that go into the climate. For someone to take guesses at what the values are for 70 of them and call that model "science" is bull crap.
  - 18y ago
patrickg-zill 18y ago
Do you agree or disagree that it is the case that only since 1958 or 1959, have any accurate measurements at all of atmospheric CO2 been made, and that at only a limited number of places around the globe? We can start with that statement if you like.
- Devilboy 18y ago
  Ice core samples are not accurate?
  - rbanffy 18y ago
    Well... The measurements are recent ;-)
huhtenberg 18y ago
> I believe that global warming is man-made Believing is irrational. Given enough time, charisma and persuasion anyone can be made to believe anything. > I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise Read on the recent research into the abrupt climate change that is now thought to have caused the demise of the Egyptian civilization. Specifically they uncovered the evidence that there was a few degrees jump in average temperatures in a scope of few years. Discovery covered this half a year ago or so. Ironically enough they were airing it right after yet another fart-less-save-the-earth special.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  "Believing is irrational. Given enough time, charisma and persuasion anyone can be made to believe anything." Because some beliefs are irrational and the result of charisma and persuasion, the act of believing itself is irrational? Really? I find it ironic that you immediately follow that statement with a persuasive argument that you seem to believe.
  - huhtenberg 18y ago
    > .. a persuasive argument that you seem to believe. What was uncovered were the facts demonstrating severe climate changes in ancient times. This requires no believing in, merely accepting that archeologists didn't fake their findings.
    - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
      I think we're just arguing semantics here. believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. Your "acceptance" of "the facts" is "believing" by the definition above, pure and simple.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
yters 18y ago
There is a bit more attached to those statements you picked out.
webwright 18y ago
I read it differently... People who say "Climates have always changed and they always will" are saying it to all the folks who REALLY DON'T KNOW IT. Seriously, if you asked 100 Americans to plot the average temperature in Iowa over then past 10,000 years, how many do you think would draw a flat line with a quick slope up starting around the twentieth century? As recently as about 30 years ago, scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling which, at the time, had been going on since the 40s. Before that, they were concerned about the warming trend that started in the 1880s. Here's a delightful article from Newsweek in the 70s: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
- spoondan 18y ago
  It is absolutely false that "scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling". In fact, thirty years ago, the scientific consensus was for warming, and there was grave and growing concern about the effect of greenhouse gases. Any review of the scientific literature from that period will prove this definitively. Fleck, Connolley, and Peterson have published on this point; you can probably find a summary of their findings online. Moreover, even if "Global Cooling" was not the lie it is, this argument is meaningless. History is littered with discarded scientific theories. This is not cause for concern. It is the way that science works. What matters is whether current theories are correct. It is interesting to note, then, that current climate models accurately describe--among many other things--the cooling period you mention. Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal.
  - webwright 18y ago
    "Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal." <sigh> You're right. Good thing no one made that argument. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote about that, which was, approximately, that most people really don't that (sadly, most people also can't point at Mexico on a map). No one is arguing that because climate normally occurs that all climate change must be normal. They are just pointing out, "Hey guys-- this isn't the first time that climate HAS changed-- so let's not rush to conclusions". Scientific consensus 30 years ago was for warming? After Source? Here's a quote from that article (admittedly from Newsweek): Meteorologists disagree [!] about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [!] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
Prrometheus 18y ago
I'm a "Lomborg skeptic". Bjorn Lomborg takes the IPCC predictions on Global Warming and shows that the costs of current proposed policies are likely to be much greater than their benefit in actual mitigated warming. He points out that much more good can be done if a fraction of the money currently earmarked to fight global warming instead went towards AIDS prevention, malaria reduction, and nutrition efforts in the third world. Of course, it is not popular to discuss costs and benefits when discussing Global Warming. The kind of leftists who are the big green alarmists don't look kindly on economic arguments. However, I believe they are essential to making rational decisions. We should all have the goal of doing more good than harm. Here's his TED talk on the subject. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...
- echair 18y ago
  Wait a minute, didn't you give humans fire in the first place?
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    Old AIM screen name; I didn't want to add a string of digits to the end of my nick.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/
mnemonik 18y ago
Weigh the risks of action vs. inaction in the 2 (simplified) situations (global warming true, global warming false) and you find that despite what may very well end up being the reality of global warming, its better to err on the side of caution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Interesting video displaying this point, but I think towards the end it gets a little preachy.
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  " ... 2 (simplified) situations ..." But those are not the only options, so more thought need be given to what action to take, at what expense and to whom, and at what opportunity cost, and to the (relative) detriment of other pressing problems. The speaker refers to his approach as a silver bullet; it's more of a silver lollipop.
- laut 18y ago
  I think that unless you give me $1 million, the earth will explode and kill everyone. Better to err on the side of caution. ;-)

by jsmcgd 18y ago

oldgregg 18y ago

I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming. Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism: "Repent of your carbon emissions!" "The world will be destroyed in ten years!" It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists. As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.

gaius 18y ago
Question: If Al Gore believed it himself, would he live in a 12-bedroom mansion with a heated swimming pool? Would he jump on a plane at the drop of a hat? Would he sell carbon credits to himself? Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all. I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#010820 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010820.html#01... Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.
  - gaius 18y ago
    That is a ridiculous counterargument. No-one is asking Al Gore to wear a hair shirt for our sins. All he has to do is walk the walk, just as he advocates that we do. How often do you think the other 11 bedrooms of his mansion are slept in? How often is his pool swum in? These things are pure ostentation. It's not even like his pool is solar heated!
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Why does he need to walk the walk? What does his walk have to do with his argument? Who's going to wake up in the morning and say, "you know, I was on the fence on this whole climate change thing, but if Al Gore is going to drive a Honda civic, I'd better sell my Hummer?"
      - laut 18y ago
        If Al Gore thinks it is so dangerous to live the way he does, why does he continue to do so? Why does he not himself do, what he wants to coerce everyone else to do? For crying out loud. It screams hypocrisy!
        tptacek 18y ago
        If I eat a Big Mac today, am I wrong if I say McDonalds is unhealthy?
garbowza 18y ago
There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  It's also kind of ad hominem. Al Gore doesn't live a life of saint renunciation, therefore, global warming is a hoax. I really see no connection.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.
  - nradov 18y ago
    Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very high. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Al Gore's involvement has made a lot of reflex conservatives who previously had no opinion on the matter into global warming skeptics. They figure since a prominent Democrat is saying it, they should be saying the opposite.
rbanffy 18y ago
If you are swimming and one person says "nice tan" and the other screams "shark!", I would strongly advise you to pay attention to the second one.
- Brushfire 18y ago
  That depends on your level of trust/expectation from either parties as well as your own assessment of the situation.
- sfg 18y ago
  What if you look at the data and find there is no chance of a shark as your in a swimming pool?
- webwright 18y ago
  If you could die at any moment and one person says, "have fun" and another person says, "be a christian or you could spend eternity in hell!", what would you advise?
  - netcan 18y ago
    Actually that's an interesting point. There is a significant amount of the latter in the world. For that reason alone I believe it merits consideration. But attention is not necessarily your agreement. Consider it & come to conclusions as objectively as you can. Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Scientific processes do not lead "to an overwhelming support" Scientific processes lead to reproducible experiments. Falsifiable theories. Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus. Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.
lutorm 18y ago
"many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming": Can we name concrete names of those rich scientists, please? I'm pretty sure Jim Hansen's gains have been limited to the risk of losing his job and of not being allowed to publish his results. And saying that "it used to be 75 years but people didn't care so now they say the world will be destroyed in 10 years" is spectacularly dishonest. First, scientific facts change. If you follow the research you'll know that evidence is accumulating that effects like deglaciation are happening faster than models used to predict. When better data become available, scientific predictions will change. Arguing that this proves that science is flawed or scientists are dishonest is like calling people changing their mind about something with more information "flip-floppers" -- but it's the only rational thing to do. Second, who is saying that "the world will be destroyed in ten years"? As far as I know, reputable scientists are saying things like "unless changes are made within ten years, we will reach a point where it will be too late to stop climate change from reaching a point with likely bad effects". That's a very different thing. Those bad effects won't happen for a long time, like 50-100 years, because of the thermal inertia of the planet, but that also means we must start slowing down now. It's like driving a car, you'd better start slowing down before you get to the curve, trying to do it when you realize you're heading off the road is too little, too late. Oh, and Al Gore is not a politician. He holds no office, and does not work for a political party. I guess it would be fair to call him a lobbyist, but his financial gain is much less than that of other "lobbyists" like the wall street people. In my eyes, he has way more credibility in his current position than any of those who have large financial stakes in influencing people.
- viggity 18y ago
  I don't have time to research all of the people that call themselves "scientists" that have invested in carbon credit companies. But, according to this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=545... Al Gore "buys" his credits from a company he owns a financial stake in. You're right, these predictions are going to change. They are going to change forever because there are infinitely many variables that go into the climate. For someone to take guesses at what the values are for 70 of them and call that model "science" is bull crap.
- 18y ago

patrickg-zill 18y ago

Do you agree or disagree that it is the case that only since 1958 or 1959, have any accurate measurements at all of atmospheric CO2 been made, and that at only a limited number of places around the globe? We can start with that statement if you like.

Devilboy 18y ago
Ice core samples are not accurate?
- rbanffy 18y ago
  Well... The measurements are recent ;-)

huhtenberg 18y ago

> I believe that global warming is man-made Believing is irrational. Given enough time, charisma and persuasion anyone can be made to believe anything. > I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise Read on the recent research into the abrupt climate change that is now thought to have caused the demise of the Egyptian civilization. Specifically they uncovered the evidence that there was a few degrees jump in average temperatures in a scope of few years. Discovery covered this half a year ago or so. Ironically enough they were airing it right after yet another fart-less-save-the-earth special.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
"Believing is irrational. Given enough time, charisma and persuasion anyone can be made to believe anything." Because some beliefs are irrational and the result of charisma and persuasion, the act of believing itself is irrational? Really? I find it ironic that you immediately follow that statement with a persuasive argument that you seem to believe.
- huhtenberg 18y ago
  > .. a persuasive argument that you seem to believe. What was uncovered were the facts demonstrating severe climate changes in ancient times. This requires no believing in, merely accepting that archeologists didn't fake their findings.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    I think we're just arguing semantics here. believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. Your "acceptance" of "the facts" is "believing" by the definition above, pure and simple.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

yters 18y ago

There is a bit more attached to those statements you picked out.

webwright 18y ago

I read it differently... People who say "Climates have always changed and they always will" are saying it to all the folks who REALLY DON'T KNOW IT. Seriously, if you asked 100 Americans to plot the average temperature in Iowa over then past 10,000 years, how many do you think would draw a flat line with a quick slope up starting around the twentieth century? As recently as about 30 years ago, scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling which, at the time, had been going on since the 40s. Before that, they were concerned about the warming trend that started in the 1880s. Here's a delightful article from Newsweek in the 70s: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

spoondan 18y ago
It is absolutely false that "scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling". In fact, thirty years ago, the scientific consensus was for warming, and there was grave and growing concern about the effect of greenhouse gases. Any review of the scientific literature from that period will prove this definitively. Fleck, Connolley, and Peterson have published on this point; you can probably find a summary of their findings online. Moreover, even if "Global Cooling" was not the lie it is, this argument is meaningless. History is littered with discarded scientific theories. This is not cause for concern. It is the way that science works. What matters is whether current theories are correct. It is interesting to note, then, that current climate models accurately describe--among many other things--the cooling period you mention. Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal.
- webwright 18y ago
  "Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal." <sigh> You're right. Good thing no one made that argument. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote about that, which was, approximately, that most people really don't that (sadly, most people also can't point at Mexico on a map). No one is arguing that because climate normally occurs that all climate change must be normal. They are just pointing out, "Hey guys-- this isn't the first time that climate HAS changed-- so let's not rush to conclusions". Scientific consensus 30 years ago was for warming? After Source? Here's a quote from that article (admittedly from Newsweek): Meteorologists disagree [!] about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [!] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

Prrometheus 18y ago

I'm a "Lomborg skeptic". Bjorn Lomborg takes the IPCC predictions on Global Warming and shows that the costs of current proposed policies are likely to be much greater than their benefit in actual mitigated warming. He points out that much more good can be done if a fraction of the money currently earmarked to fight global warming instead went towards AIDS prevention, malaria reduction, and nutrition efforts in the third world. Of course, it is not popular to discuss costs and benefits when discussing Global Warming. The kind of leftists who are the big green alarmists don't look kindly on economic arguments. However, I believe they are essential to making rational decisions. We should all have the goal of doing more good than harm. Here's his TED talk on the subject. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...

echair 18y ago
Wait a minute, didn't you give humans fire in the first place?
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Old AIM screen name; I didn't want to add a string of digits to the end of my nick.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/

mnemonik 18y ago

Weigh the risks of action vs. inaction in the 2 (simplified) situations (global warming true, global warming false) and you find that despite what may very well end up being the reality of global warming, its better to err on the side of caution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Interesting video displaying this point, but I think towards the end it gets a little preachy.

jamesbritt 18y ago
" ... 2 (simplified) situations ..." But those are not the only options, so more thought need be given to what action to take, at what expense and to whom, and at what opportunity cost, and to the (relative) detriment of other pressing problems. The speaker refers to his approach as a silver bullet; it's more of a silver lollipop.
laut 18y ago
I think that unless you give me $1 million, the earth will explode and kill everyone. Better to err on the side of caution. ;-)