the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.
I am annoyed at my own lack of motivation.
the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
Leif wrote:the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.
Enitharmon wrote:Leif wrote:the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.
When the Mid-West becomes an uninhabitable desert, that will scarcely matter, will it?
Leif wrote:Enitharmon wrote:Leif wrote:the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.
When the Mid-West becomes an uninhabitable desert, that will scarcely matter, will it?
I think it matters very much whether it's preventable or a natural cycle...
Leif wrote:I think it matters very much whether it's preventable or a natural cycle...
the31337ofPurgatory wrote:I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.
Enitharmon wrote:But then, it would seem that the weight of considered scientific opinion is in favour of the man-made hypothesis. Those in the natural-cycle-can't-do-anything-about-it camp appear to have a vested interest, in that they are advocates of a rush for economic growth as a panacea. To these people, climate change and global warming are no more than an anti-capitalist plot.
In the end, those who survive climate change most successfully will be those best able to adapt to changing circumstances. There's a lot of evidence from scenes of war and natural disaster around the world that those who cope best are the elderly and the very young. Those in between, who have become dependent on the consumer society, don't know how to do basic things like make bread.
Leif wrote:I disagree. It seems to me that those on the other side of the argument have a vested interest. Just look at Al Gore...
Whoa there, you're acting the world is going to completely change over night.
In the absolute worst case scenario, we're talking centuries before it comes to that apocalyptic-type situation.
I also think it's quite stupid to pour billions and billions of money into preventing global warming.
Enitharmon wrote:Leif wrote:
I also think it's quite stupid to pour billions and billions of money into preventing global warming.
Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.
Enitharmon wrote:What about Al Gore? Does Big Al fancy his chances against Hills? I thought he was a shrewder operator than that, but if you think that's the reason he promotes action against climate change, then presumably you must also think that he sees votes in it. On the other hand, and this sems more likely to me, he has chosen to use his clout to devote himself to a cause which he believes in.
This is really neither here nor there. Global warming may be a major political issue in the United States, but it isn't anywhere else. Here in Europe there are fanatics on the fringe who make a song and dance about it, but generally politicians accept the scientific consensus. Or at least the scientific consensus that is independent of oil interests. I can guarantee that the winners of the next general election in Britain will regard global climate change as an issue to be addressed.
And a point that isn't made anything like often enough to those who make the blunderbuss charges of 'anti-Americanism': the USA is a foreign country to which we Europeans, Canadians, Australasians and other non-Americans owe no allegiance.
You may be, I'm not. It's changing at a rate which is observable. Agricultural practices are changing.
Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.
Leif wrote:Enitharmon wrote:
Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.
Kyoto alone would cost about 150 billion a year...
Leif wrote:Enitharmon wrote:What about Al Gore? Does Big Al fancy his chances against Hills? I thought he was a shrewder operator than that, but if you think that's the reason he promotes action against climate change, then presumably you must also think that he sees votes in it. On the other hand, and this sems more likely to me, he has chosen to use his clout to devote himself to a cause which he believes in.
I absolutely think he's politically driven. If not, why does he own three extremely large mansions and a private jet? If he sincerely believes in the cause, surely he would be able to make a few personal sacrifices.
Vicinity of Obscenity wrote:In my area at least....it was MUCH hotter in the 80's than it is now. But thats just here.
Mockingbird wrote:The right draws people's attentions to niggling details like the fact that Al Gore spends a lot of money on his jet!1!!
I understand what you're saying, Leif, and yes, we should take the small actions, but how can we, when some people are still debating the necessity of those actions, when this kind of dissension is encouraged and propagated by parts of our government?
Mockingbird wrote:Vicinity of Obscenity wrote:In my area at least....it was MUCH hotter in the 80's than it is now. But thats just here.
Are you quite serious? Do you think the entirety of this debate can be influenced by where it is hot and where it isn't? It was pretty cold here yesterday, so clearly, global warming, global schwarming!
Return to “%s” The Credibility Gap
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests