Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
This might be slightly off topic, but I've always wondered what if global warming is a good thing. It really doesn't look that way, but for a mental exercise, lets say it is. More cropland opens up, rainforests extend their range and increase biodiversity despite loss of cold weather animals, the world is more productive and the quality of living rises for all...would it still be so bad?
|
The term "Global Warming" is a misnomer. It's not that everywhere will increase in temperature by x degrees. It's global climate destabilization - the trend of which is warmer on a planetary scale (not necessarily local). For example, I have yet to have my Central Florida winter. It will be 55 degrees one day - 85 a day and a half later, then torrential rains (this is the dry season). BUT, remember that local weather is no indication of global trends. But imagine a situation where it's 75 for a week followed by a couple days a freezing followed by more 75 degree weather. This is not ideal for crop growing :/
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
I suppose the question isn't whether global warming is a crock of ****, but whether the arguments against it are. I for one would be oppossed simply due to the moral aspect of man changing something greater than himself. Apart from the whole oil consumption issue, would SUV's still be villanized if they helped the world? Probably, but then it gets down into a deeper issue. One I feel that is more important. Even if global warming is bogus, the change and attitude it inspires certainly is not. Bob Lutz, you could be right...but you're still a greedy SOB in my book.
- LostCause
|
Perhaps I can steer you into a better questioning direction... But first - the scientific method does not allow anyone to prove a negative. No one can prove any god doesn't exist. Nor can anyone prove that aliens didn't construct the Pyramids at Giza. America, for some reason (I blame low education), has lost touch with this fundamental science understanding. Why have people not investing in proving GW doesn't exist (I've heard this argument so many times) - because that's
not how science works. It's not a conspiracy, it's how the process works.
So the better question - "Can we afford the consequences of either outcome?" Can we afford the environmental and economic costs of doing nothing and GW being correct? Or, can we afford the economic costs of doing something and GW not being correct? You don't have to answer me - just bear in mind that being correct and doing nothing leads to similar economic/social issues of being incorrect and taking action - being correct and doing nothing just has the assisted benefit of one fubar place to live.
The best way to handle those questions is to take a Socratic approach. Ask a question related to each answer before drawing a conclusion. Repeat until exhausted, then formulate an opinion. It helps to write it down so you can review
-----
SUV's in their current form will always be villainized. Safety, consumption of resources etc.