Global Warming Debate Simplified
Oct. 31st, 2007 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheaGot this link from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ironraptor and thought it was worth sharing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
It's fairly succinct and a good summary of my own opinions on the issue.
Of course, I can see pretty immediately where right-wingers will focus on trying to break his argument. They'll attempt it using their own fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. Indeed, a couple of the commentors were quick to jump to this argument. It goes like this:
For the ignorant simpleton that asks this question, not because they are really concerned with the problem but because they need to be 'smarter' than the dirty liberal, here's the answer:
You're a stupid fucking idiot.
The rows are this: Human action is causing global warming. TRUE or FALSE.
IF human action is NOT causing global warming, then the actions we take to not cause global warming will also not affect global warming.
IF human action IS affecting global warming and we take the wrong actions, we are NO WORSE OFF than we'd be by taking NO action. (However, the vast majority of scientists agree on what human factors may be contributing to global warming. They disagree only on the amount of an affect they have. No one is going to suggest that we need to eradicate the ozone layer.) This argument is utterly stupid in every possible way.
--
I'd also like to make a note about the scale of the disaster scenerios on both sides of the fence. On the do-nothing side, as he points out, the disaster is economic. On the other side, economic is one of several disasters that result.
Now... It's fair to say that as a citizen of the US, I'd be fairly inconvenienced by total economic collapse. So would most of you... But we're a small portion of the world population, you and I. Many people in the world ALREADY live in abject poverty. So what you're really talking about on the right-wing side is disaster for the people in power. On the liberal side, what you're talking about is disaster for nearly every man, woman, child, plant, and animal on the face of the planet. When you talk about it in those terms: Only affects the people in power VS Affects nearly everyone and everything on the whole planet, it's pretty apparent which side is more important.
So yeah. Go ahead and try to knock down his argument. I don't think you can. If that bothers you, maybe it's time for you to reconsider your position. If you think you can knock it down, hit me with it. I'm always up for a good intelligent debate.
ironraptor and thought it was worth sharing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
It's fairly succinct and a good summary of my own opinions on the issue.
Of course, I can see pretty immediately where right-wingers will focus on trying to break his argument. They'll attempt it using their own fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. Indeed, a couple of the commentors were quick to jump to this argument. It goes like this:
There's another row you forgot! What if we take an action and it turns out to be the wrong one and makes things worse!
For the ignorant simpleton that asks this question, not because they are really concerned with the problem but because they need to be 'smarter' than the dirty liberal, here's the answer:
You're a stupid fucking idiot.
The rows are this: Human action is causing global warming. TRUE or FALSE.
IF human action is NOT causing global warming, then the actions we take to not cause global warming will also not affect global warming.
IF human action IS affecting global warming and we take the wrong actions, we are NO WORSE OFF than we'd be by taking NO action. (However, the vast majority of scientists agree on what human factors may be contributing to global warming. They disagree only on the amount of an affect they have. No one is going to suggest that we need to eradicate the ozone layer.) This argument is utterly stupid in every possible way.
--
I'd also like to make a note about the scale of the disaster scenerios on both sides of the fence. On the do-nothing side, as he points out, the disaster is economic. On the other side, economic is one of several disasters that result.
Now... It's fair to say that as a citizen of the US, I'd be fairly inconvenienced by total economic collapse. So would most of you... But we're a small portion of the world population, you and I. Many people in the world ALREADY live in abject poverty. So what you're really talking about on the right-wing side is disaster for the people in power. On the liberal side, what you're talking about is disaster for nearly every man, woman, child, plant, and animal on the face of the planet. When you talk about it in those terms: Only affects the people in power VS Affects nearly everyone and everything on the whole planet, it's pretty apparent which side is more important.
So yeah. Go ahead and try to knock down his argument. I don't think you can. If that bothers you, maybe it's time for you to reconsider your position. If you think you can knock it down, hit me with it. I'm always up for a good intelligent debate.
