What is the argument against saving humanity while creating jobs and increasing national security?
97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client...
So it's not 100%, but what is the argument for betting on the other 3% when the solution does not have negative effects? Green jobs will stimulate the economy and make us more competitive, and getting off of foreign oil will end our infinite entanglements in the Middle East (imagine the day we can say "fuc.k you, Iran and Saudi Arabia!!).
Cap and trade is obviously the most controversial part of the solution, and if there was no precedent for it then I wouldn't necessarily be in favor because it so complex...the thing is, George Bush I's cap and trade program for acid rain passed without controversy and by all accounts has been a great success. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client...
I'm not a tree hugger, I don't get kickbacks from Al Gore, I just want to live and want all of our children to live....the facts plus the logic says we have to act, please help me understand the logic of your opposition.
I know it is tempting to use the "climategate/hide the decline" email by ONE climatologist as the basis for your argument. This would be ridiculous no matter what, but the author of that email explains what he what he meant:
"This remark has nothing to do with any 'decline' in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This 'divergence' is well known in the tree-ring literature and 'trick' did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather 'a convenient way of achieving something', in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report."
Please save your insults, I'm open-minded so you have a chance to convince me if you present a rebuttal that makes any sense.
- Just JessLv 710 years agoBest Answer
I read your last line first, the goal is never to convince the person you're talking to, just to present your point of view. But of course my point of view would never be convincing if I hurled a bunch of insults your way.
This is where your opposition is coming from:
#1, Lack of information. Most of what people are given when we're first introduced to the global warming debate is statistics on how many people agree with it, like what you've given. As we dig harder and harder, we find liberal interpretations of data made to fit arguments on both sides, and when we apply statistics to the actual data everyone's using, they don't prove anything one way or another within a reasonable confidence interval. The study in Antarctica, for instance.
Which leads us to one of two conclusions: either there isn't enough information to make an informed decision, or there is and most of us simply can't get at it. Either way, we're stuck looking at those statistics and realizing that, for the numbers to be as big as they are, it means a lot of people are making up their minds without examining the issue for themselves at all.
#2, the solution that's presented. The solution is always to take money from Industries, some of which arguably do have too much power, and put it in the hands of governments. The same people that argue for programs such as cap-and-trade and the kyoto protocol, often argue against nuclear power, biofeuls, and sometimes even wind power generation.
The point is, that the aim is seldom identifying the problems, tracing them down to their underlying source, and then trying to find solutions that benefit everyone, everyone meaning the people, businesses, and governments involved. Instead we have political position jockeying and bandwagon arguments.
#3, the term "Global Warming" itself is catch-all. The global climate is something that is not well enough understood to be controlled. We can't, for example, predictably burn a certain amount of oil to raise the global temperature exactly 10 degrees. We simply don't know everything about our atmosphere. Rather than pointing at things people are doing, studying them directly, and then coming up with lists of potential problems and ways to prevent them, we are starting with the potential problems and pretending we can trace them back to their sources.
The problem this causes is policy with a built-in massive potential for abuse. Since policy motivated solely by global warming can be applied any time the Earth's climate, which again we don't fully understand, changes (or even potentially COULD change in the future), it means that you are giving people a do-anything-they-want-and-get-away-with-it card. Until that potential for abuse problem is honestly addressed, and problems are looked at from the bottom up, I can't have any sympathy to people who want to use cap-and-trade to reduce global warming.
In a sentence, the problem has nothing to do with global warming in and of itself; the problem is the political battles and general lack of intellectual honesty.
- Spock (rhp)Lv 710 years ago
if 97% of fools said they believed the earth was flat, would you go along with them?
The way an ordinary person can judge the scientific merit of some point is by reviewing the articles published in the leading journals in the field. the editors of those journals actually do know the science and what constitutes well done, good quality work. they weed out garbage work and rehashes of old material that doesn't add to the body of human knowledge.
so, when you see leading journals continuing to publish articles and studies that are critical of the human caused global warming hypothesis, you can safely bet that the premise isn't "settled science" but that significant and serious doubts remain.
then, the question becomes -- are you willing to bet your childrens' and grandchildrens' economic welfare on the unsettled science which proposes that humanity has become so powerful that its byproducts are poisoning the entire earth?
there's no doubt that the "cap and tax" bill, or similar efforts, would cause severe economic dislocations in America. And that's the opportunities the next generation wants to enjoy.Source(s): grampa -- i've been around the block a few times and logic traps like the one you refer to don't work on me any more.
- 10 years ago
A tax on industry will result in a price increase to consumers as those polluting industries will pay more in taxes or pay more for newer, less polluting alternatives. Pollution won't be affected because the world population is always increasing, so consumers just end up paying more and having less to save, still breathing poison air and drinking poisoned water.
Your example of Bush's cap and trade is missing some large pieces of the big picture. Clean coal is mined here in western Colroado, then shipped via diesel burning locomotive to Virginia, where it is burned to create electricity. All the exhaust from the locomotives isn't measured in determining sulpher emmisions, just the emmissions on the coal plant.
- Anonymous10 years ago
AL GORES SPEECH MONEY will not save the bankrupt country........
were on a course that can't be turned around.....
GREECE SPAIN are on there way....
California wll be 1st to crash.....
MADE MADE GLOBAL WARMING will only make it worse......
same thing happned with the 1861 crash & RAIL ROAD TYCOONS...
only there are alot more poeople with out jobs this time....
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 10 years ago
The whole premise is so profoundly flawed.. I don't know where to begin.
- Anonymous10 years ago