posted
650 international scientists, maybe ten of whom are climatologists? Are any of them named Steve? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the chance that some scientists are ignoring the global warming debate and instead are taking the "this can't be good" approach to pollution?
And can I jump on their bandwagon?
To be perfectly honest, I don't really care much about global warming. When I was growing up there were days that the pollution was so bad that my classmates and I weren't allowed outside during recess. And I lived out in the country/upcoming-suburbs.
I lean towards support for the global warming theory if only because I'd rather be wrong than sorry. But can they just stop bickering and maybe throw their support behind reducing pollution?
You don't have to know the thickness or thinness of the icecaps in order to understand that maybe all the **** we produce isn't good for the environment, period!
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I lean towards support for the global warming theory if only because I'd rather be wrong than sorry.
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that.
Reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment may be a worthy cause, but there are economic ramifications to every environmental law that gets passed. That may sound petty, but when economies are impacted, innocent people suffer and die. The evil, polluting factories and cars support our civilization's life and quality of life.
I'm not coming down against environmental legislation. It's a complex issue, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to say definitively how serious the situation is. But if there is no clear and present danger to the ability of our planet to support life, and you favor sweeping environmental reform simply because it gives you warm fuzzy feelings, the consequences may far outweigh the benefits. I'm sure you don't want people to die to make the view from your window slightly prettier.
Of course, if there is an immediate and serious threat to our planet, environmental legislation may save all of our lives. But it's too complex an issue to be Pascal's Wagered.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tune in next time for another rousing rendition of Pay No Attention To The Viability Of The Climate Consensus.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Speed, are you honestly suggesting that the primary goal of anti-pollution legislation is to make the world prettier?!?
Respiratory allergies, certain cancers, asthma -- so these mean nothing to you? And not to coin a phrase or anything, but extinction is forever.
I don't know where you got that. I wasn't suggesting anything about anything other than Shanna's reasoning, which is why I started my post with the quote I was responding to.
Perhaps my point didn't come across as clearly as I'd intended, but I think if you re-read my post carefully you'll find that I was saying the opposite of what you seem to have gathered from it.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that you responded to a single line of her post and ignored most of the rest, you can possibly excuse me for not reading yours with a fine-toothed comb.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I lean towards support for the global warming theory if only because I'd rather be wrong than sorry.
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that.
Reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment may be a worthy cause, but there are economic ramifications to every environmental law that gets passed. That may sound petty, but when economies are impacted, innocent people suffer and die. The evil, polluting factories and cars support our civilization's life and quality of life.
I'm not coming down against environmental legislation. It's a complex issue, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to say definitively how serious the situation is. But if there is no clear and present danger to the ability of our planet to support life, and you favor sweeping environmental reform simply because it gives you warm fuzzy feelings, the consequences may far outweigh the benefits. I'm sure you don't want people to die to make the view from your window slightly prettier.
Of course, if there is an immediate and serious threat to our planet, environmental legislation may save all of our lives. But it's too complex an issue to be Pascal's Wagered.
I'm with rivka's interpretation of your post. What she said is pretty much exactly how I read it.
Frankly, your post is the main enemy that has to be fought and defeated before we can really turn around most people on the issues before us. When I argue for environmentalist causes, I almost never use global climate change, or if I do, only as an afterthought. I do that because the issue is so volatile that it often obscures many other perfectly good reasons for doing a lot of self-preserving things that otherwise people might balk at if for the cause of global climate change.
But the idea that environmental laws are an automatic negative on economic growth just for the sake of scenary is so ridiculously wrong, and has been debunked on this site in particular so many times, that I'm not going to waste a lot of breath doing it for the thousandth time. But suffice to say that the very premise of your argument is way, way off base. Environmentalism can be a major economic DRIVER, not deterrent, and it looks like Obama is going to do his best to prove that point for me for once and for all. It's also thanks to environmentalism that our air and water isn't more polluted than it already is, otherwise pulmonary disease and complications would be many times worse, to say nothing of the crap that's in our water and in our systems. Air pollution kills far more people every year than environmentalism hurts via unemployment, by far. And that's to say nothing of the people who suffer daily thanks to what they are forced to breath in.
There are a lot of things that are going to have to change, and for a dozen reasons that have nothing to do with climate change that will make us safer, more secure, and live longer lives with a better quality of life.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm with rivka's interpretation of your post. What she said is pretty much exactly how I read it.
Then you both read it wrong.
I specifically and repeatedly said that the post had nothing to do with whether global warming did or didn't exist, or with whether environmental legislation was good or bad.
All I was refuting was her assertion that, regardless of the evidence, it's best to believe in global warming because believing it to be true and being wrong would be far better than believing it to be false and being wrong.
She was trying to support global warming with a slightly modified Pascal's Wager, and I don't think it makes any more sense here than it does in a religious context. Her statement that I quoted didn't have anything to do with examining the actual evidence for or against global warming, and neither did my response.
If you think my post was trying to prove anything beyond that abstract point, read it again.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: What's the chance that some scientists are ignoring the global warming debate and instead are taking the "this can't be good" approach to pollution?
I agree with you. I don't know yet how I feel about global warming. I don't think there is enough evidence for me to make a decision, BUT I do think we need to look into conservation, recycling, and alternative forms of energy. My problem with Al Gore and others in the global warming business is them trying to lay guilt on people. I also thing carbon credits is a load of BS.
We have switched to CFL lights and recycle, but I will never purchase a carbon credit.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A point that was almost irrelevant to her larger point.
And if I'd had a problem with her larger point, I would have argued it.
Are you still trying to draw me into defending a position that I never espoused, or have you figured out the scope of my original argument yet?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Speed's post, I have no problem with anyone arguing the "Pascal's Wager" angle if they wish. I'm not sure if its necessarily the same thing but I guess that depends on perspective. I always thought the lunacy of Pascal's Wager was that "belief" for the sake of personal gain would be invalid and easily disregarded by an omnipotent being. I think the "choice between two necessary evils" is a more appropriate analogy especially since you're taking the stance that any pro-environmental changes would be hugely detrimental to society a whole.
Anyway, THIS is the line I have a problem with:
quote:I'm sure you don't want people to die to make the view from your window slightly prettier.
Considering I gave an example of how pollution has impacted my life (air quality was such that children weren't allowed to play outside), I really don't know where you got the idea that I am for irresponsible laws in order to improve my "view."
What I want is for people to stop bickering over climate change as if the answer is the goal and not simply a hand towards actually doing something about it. We should be developing new technologies and finding ways to encourage conservation in the lives and working of businesses and citizens. I'm not sure what the best way is to go about this, but it'd be nice if our brightest minds were thinking about it rather than trying to get their names in the paper.
Its like that stupid cliche about not seeing the forest for the trees, except that if we don't start looking at the big picture we won't have any forests to miss in the future.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't know where you got that. I wasn't suggesting anything about anything other than Shanna's reasoning, which is why I started my post with the quote I was responding to.
