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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-01 11:27 am (UTC)Okay. I agree with that and I concede your point as I was looking at it from inside the frame of reference (the same problem as noted for religions)
Religious people live inside the frame of the world as defined by their religion.
I was defining the frame of the world in terms of the environment we all live inside of. This seemed fair to me as (save for a half dozen astronauts) we all live inside within the Earth's environment and it's real and tangible which gives it more credibility as being something worth preparing for than a religion.
While this is true, it doesn't give an idea of the potential threat the situation poses.
A good analogy would be Bush's Missile Defense System (which cost a lot of money and could only hit a rigged demo 25% of the time) Framed in the context of the paranoid militaristic xenophobic mind of the right wing, it's only a matter of time until someone gets ahold of an old Soviet nuclear missile and fires it at us.
I think, given the complexity and age of the equipment and the materials needed to fuel and launch such a device that the odds of it ever even getting off the ground, let alone getting headed towards its mark are pretty low and that the odds of shooting it down given the record of the missile defense system is significantly lower. However, I must concede there is a non-zero probability it could happen.
So... You're right, of course, but that leaves us with a small problem.
The corollary to your argument is that in lack of definitive evidence that yields a favorable probability, it's better to simply do nothing.
However, research is not "doing nothing". It's an investment of time and resources and often money. Checking to see if there IS a risk IS taking a step towards prevention/correction.
We're already well down the path towards doing something about global warming so not doing anything else at this point is kind of foolish. Likewise, both sides could go back and forth forever debating every minor point. Trying what we propose to fix a problem is the only way to really empirically test it. Research and statistics can only get you so far. Something like God or the environment is far too complex for us to accurately model. There are too many variables. Empirical testing is really the only option at a certain point.
At what point do you start empirical tests? There will always be someone who says more research is required, effectively filibustering the process. At some point, you have to take your hang glider and step off a cliff. Many people would chose to NEVER test their glider because they don't see it as acceptable risk. The problem is that the environment is a set that encompasses all of everything mankind is except for a few chunks of lonely metal in deep space. If we wait for complete consensus of acceptable risk, we'll not act until it's too late.
As far as global warming is concerned, the mass majority of people who are actually really qualified to have a position on global warming are in vast agreement that it does exist. Most of the debate seems to be on whether or not human activities are contributing to the problem. It's a view that crosses fields of study and cultures. I would wild-guess that the number of qualified people who disagree on human factors in warming are at most 20% but let's be generous and say it's 40%. Are 40% odds a good bet to gamble 7 billion lives on? In hospitals, a 10% chance of death is termed as 'extremely risky'.