20 Aug 07
It seems to me that the pay off for presuming that human caused global warming is real and acting accordingly completely trumps assuming it isn't.
Can anyone give me a viable alternative?
To completely disclose my position, I'm pretty much sold on the notion that humans have had (or are having) a major impact on global climate. If that's true we should work to modify this impact and help to ease the results of such impact. Assuming it's not true and being wrong would seem a drastic error.
If it's not true as many here seem to suggest, then any modification of our actions will presumably do nothing. Assuming it is true and being wrong has little effect.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisNeed to convince the politicians first. Also, it would be a little ironic to be using military measures to enforce ecologically centred policies, have you seen the mpg's for the average tank? Though if the political critical mass can be achieved to garner change, I'm sure we could get some aggressive sanctions going on China for instance. it'd help the planet, slow their economy (but the sanctions would still have to allow for growth, just more modest growth) then we all win.
Thats interesting and would seem to make sense... but I have wondered why if global warming is such a bad event, shouldn't countries be forced to step in line. Militarily or otherwise. (not joking)
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonChina... I noticed they are on a car/SUV buying rampage over there. You do not think the condition of the earth warrants military action to save it? I understand first economic sanctions, but after that fails, what then?
Need to convince the politicians first. Also, it would be a little ironic to be using military measures to enforce ecologically centred policies, have you seen the mpg's for the average tank? Though if the political critical mass can be achieved to garner change, I'm sure we could get some aggressive sanctions going on China for instance. it'd help the plane ...[text shortened]... the sanctions would still have to allow for growth, just more modest growth) then we all win.
I know, first China then the US.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonIf there was a tricky thing to do, it would be to manage sanctions in such way as to direct a nations economy to a specific growth rate.
Need to convince the politicians first. Also, it would be a little ironic to be using military measures to enforce ecologically centred policies, have you seen the mpg's for the average tank? Though if the political critical mass can be achieved to garner change, I'm sure we could get some aggressive sanctions going on China for instance. it'd help the plane ...[text shortened]... the sanctions would still have to allow for growth, just more modest growth) then we all win.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisAfter sanctions, you do some of those Live Earth concerts. That'll fix'em.
China... I noticed they are on a car/SUV buying rampage over there. You do not think the condition of the earth warrants military action to save it? I understand first economic sanctions, but after that fails, what then?
I know, first China then the US.
20 Aug 07
Oh no! Not this again.
Agryson, go for it..beat the disbelievers into shape..in fact, let me help you. Everyone, run immediately and subscribe to New Scientist magazine. :}
btw: Is New Scientist still printing aricles by those fellows who think pumping sulphur particles into the atmosphere (to reproduce the cooling effect of a large valcanic eruption) as a solution to climate change?
20 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainLOL,
Oh no! Not this again.
Agryson, go for it..beat the disbelievers into shape..in fact, let me help you. Everyone, run immediately and subscribe to New Scientist magazine. :}
btw: Is New Scientist still printing aricles by those fellows who think pumping sulphur particles into the atmosphere (to reproduce the cooling effect of a large valcanic eruption) as a solution to climate change?
You got me, they should be paying me for this. But no, they don't really write their own articles, they only report on scientific articels and translate them from scientific gibberish into language that can be understood. (Here's an interesting point anyone who listened to the podcast I posted may have picked up on, one of the past editors of New Scientist is a GW sceptic! Shock Horror! I didn't mention that before to see if any of the skeptics here picked up on it, guess they didn't listen to it... 😛)
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MerkVery true, though I think if we were too good at it, they might catch on and have second thoughts about this slow conversion to capitalism thing they're going through. All the sanctions would need to do is take the teeth off the tiger, not keep its growth at a specific value.
If there was a tricky thing to do, it would be to manage sanctions in such way as to direct a nations economy to a specific growth rate.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainI am actually curious as to why it is not important enough to force countries into following the rules to save the environment.
Oh no! Not this again.
Agryson, go for it..beat the disbelievers into shape..in fact, let me help you. Everyone, run immediately and subscribe to New Scientist magazine. :}
btw: Is New Scientist still printing aricles by those fellows who think pumping sulphur particles into the atmosphere (to reproduce the cooling effect of a large valcanic eruption) as a solution to climate change?
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisWell, I think that if the political will to enforce change is there, military action shouldn't be necessary. I'd be wary of using violence to achieve the aims of ecological balance. Eco-freak anti-vivisection, anti GM crop, anti comfort hippy types tend to get a little uncharacteristically blood thirsty if given half the chance. Exhuming scientists grandmothers and such.
China... I noticed they are on a car/SUV buying rampage over there. You do not think the condition of the earth warrants military action to save it? I understand first economic sanctions, but after that fails, what then?
I know, first China then the US.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomiswho's going to force the US since the US doesn't think global warming is an issue
Thats interesting and would seem to make sense... but I have wondered why if global warming is such a bad event, shouldn't countries be forced to step in line. Militarily or otherwise. (not joking)
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonHmmm.... what happens if we don't stop global warming? Good things?
Well, I think that if the political will to enforce change is there, military action shouldn't be necessary. I'd be wary of using violence to achieve the aims of ecological balance. Eco-freak anti-vivisection, anti GM crop, anti comfort hippy types tend to get a little uncharacteristically blood thirsty if given half the chance. Exhuming scientists grandmothers and such.