Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers

In article <ltqs72hchimd92r7a9880ehdsi4a4ua0fs@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:56:17 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <pan.2006.06.01.01.08.16.428517@xxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:


Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
virtue.

I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
am I closed to counter-arguments.

I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
history.

The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
provided another neat example.

The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.

That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.

The reasoning from the global warming believers is like standing at
the beach watching the waves lapping at the shore and suddenly
deciding that the next wave can only be caused by man and that its
going to kill us all.
When something has been happening for thousands of years there's no
reason to believe that its anything different when it happens in your
lifetime.

The current pattern of change does not appear to resemble pre-human
historical events. There has been extensive study of this. See,
climatologists get their grant money (to put this in terms you might
understand) whether global warming is caused by human activity or by
something else, and the answer to this question could have pretty big
implications, so they're more than willing to look at the full range of
possible causes.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
that we are going to solve this crisis."

"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
full-blown discussion of the solutions."

None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
ecosystem.

Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.

Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
the long run.

It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.

We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past events.

It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
routes. Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms, which means
there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.

I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages
Loading