Comments on: Climate Change versus Global Warming

By: euandus2

euandus2 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:43:37 +0000

Even letting the debate continue, when our species may hang in the balance, says something about us. I argue that there is a certain presumptuousness surrounding our approach to how we are addressing global warming that goes well beyond simply having a short-term perspective. What if the cockroach has a more sustainable position? I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/climatic-presumption-what-is-the-forecast/

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:35:17 +0000

Although I tend to agree with the sentiment, I also cringe from arguments (even though they are sometimes unavoidable) based on a “better safe than sorry” or “if it saves just one life… it’s worth it.”

Using the same argument and logic, if we put a national 10 mile per hour speed limit, we would save lots of lives. And you might say, “That’s crazy… we’re not going to do that!” I would then be inclined to say, “Do you not care about saving lives? What about the children?”

But that changes what the argument is truly about which is the cost/benefit difference between having that speed limit at 10mph or 65mph.

At what point do we stop pursuing might?

As for my own personal background/beliefs… I am not a global warming denier, but I do think it’s just part of the natural warming and cooling of the earth. The thought that our human contribution is significant enough, compared to what nature itself does, is a form of hubris. It reminds me of myself as a teenager thinking a pimple on my face was the end of my life, as opposed to my own anti-social tendencies and inability to be cool.

By: harpowoman

harpowoman — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:01:57 +0000

Can we all give Brother Dave an Amen! You are absolutely right good sir, no matter what we must do something about it. And if we were wrong, at least our priorities were right! Rebecca

By: daveawayfromhome

daveawayfromhome — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:45:47 +0000

Is Global warming real? Yeah, it seems to be. Is it man-made? I dont know. I dont even care. If there is even a 1 in 4 chance that what we're doing is screwing up the planet, then it seems reasonable to stop it. To say, oh, it's not proven, then carry on as if nothing might be happening is irresponsible, perhaps criminally so. If you were to tell George Bush that one of his (hypothetical) grandchildren might be getting molested by the gym teacher, would he shrug and say "there's no proof"? No, he damn well would check out the story, and probably take immediate steps to see that no further molestation (if it is indeed occurring) goes on, even as he checks to see if it's true. Oh, forget all that crap, and concentrate on this: If there is a chance that we are making life unlivable on this planet (the only one we have so far), wouldnt it be wise to stop doing the things that may be destroying it? Years from now, if further studies show we're wrong, that we havent been warming the planet, then we can all slap ourselves on the forehead and have a good laugh with our grandchildren. Then we'll all go out, get into our electric hum-vees (charged with solar power) and go have a picnic someplace in the clean air.