Home > Climate Change > Global Warming, Earthquake Edition

Global Warming, Earthquake Edition

I can’t say I’m very surprised.

Perhaps someone can tell me how I’m more dangerous because I think:

“Humans probably don’t have enough to do with any climate changes to be worried about, much less to destroy the world economy.”

Than this person:

“An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”

Or this person:

“I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”

Yeah, I’m the crazy one.

Advertisements
Categories: Climate Change
  1. 2011/03/11 at 22:19

    I’d suggest that…

    “Humans probably don’t have enough to do with any climate changes to be worried about, much less to destroy the world economy.”

    and…

    “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”

    …are both silly. Of the two, the way that the latter is expressed is perhaps more silly/overblown, but I would guess it’s probably the sort of thing said by someone in a moment of excitement rather than a serious scientist. Isn’t that fair?

    To suggest that because you have a hunch that we “probably” don’t do “enough” to impact climate change means that we ought not concern ourselves with human impact upon our environment in general and the climate, as well, well, I’d say that’s an imprudent leap of logic.

    It seems to me that prudence would suggest that IF there’s a chance that our activities may be contributing to something as big as climate change – IN ADDITION to the known harm human activity has upon the environment in other ways… prudence would suggest being a little more aware and informed before just proceeding willy nilly based upon unknown hunches and best guesses.

    Does that seem reasonable to you?

  2. 2011/03/11 at 22:57

    The whole idea of anthropomorphic climate change is a hunch and a best guess.

    I’m not suggesting we ignore our impact on the environment, much the opposite. I like to focus on things we know rather than the theory of global warming than has both horrible conflicts of interest and failed predictions up the wazoo.

  3. 2011/03/12 at 10:24

    anthropomorphic climate change is pretty credible, but that being said, your post is correct. Bad things do not cause every other bad thing that happens. President Obama’s nationalization of GM did not cause the yellow water in my mustard bottle.

  4. 2011/03/12 at 10:49

    I’m still not convinced that we are responsible for any large part of any climate change that may be happening. Merely correlating two things doesn’t prove causation. I would never dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or even that that would cause warming, I merely dispute the efficacy of the increase we have contributed in warming the globe as much as some predict.

    I certainly don’t see it as a reason to wreck the industrialized world, and as surely as the Pope is Catholic, the plans produced thus far would do exactly that, and not do a damned thing to correct any damage we may have done.

  5. 2011/03/12 at 13:16

    The whole idea of anthropomorphic climate change is a hunch and a best guess.

    No, it is an EDUCATED guess, based upon evidence, that many scientists hold. It is not a definitive word, but it IS an educated guess, which is not the same as a best guess and I’m saying I hold an educated guess as a more reasonable bit of evidence than a best guess and wild hunch.

    I’m saying we KNOW human activity negatively effects the environment in many complex and different ways. ADDING TO what we already know to be harmful effects, the likelihood/possibility that we are also negatively effecting climate change, then I find it horribly imprudent to ignore that evidence blindly in favor of maintaining a status quo.

    One of the hallmarks of conservatism is prudence and I think prudence is a good thing, I just wish more conservatives would embrace it more readily.

  6. 2011/03/12 at 13:22

    Nate…

    I certainly don’t see it as a reason to wreck the industrialized world, and as surely as the Pope is Catholic, the plans produced thus far would do exactly that

    Do you have any EVIDENCE for this? Pardon me for pointing this out, but I keep seeing this assertion made with no evidence (not just your statement here, but over and over in many places) and I prefer to base policies on evidence, not hunches and unsupported guesses. The evidence for anthropogenic effects on climate change IS there. It’s not conclusive evidence, but it IS evidence and, as noted already, it is evidence on top of other undisputed evidence of negative impacts upon the environment by human action. That outweighs, for me, any unsupported hunches about what MIGHT happen if we try to pursue a more reasonable set of policies.

    I think one problem in these sorts of conversations is that environmentalists see the economy as a subset of the environment. That being the case, it is obvious to us that you can’t have a healthy economy without having a healthy environment. Any apparent economic benefits that come at a cost to the environment are short term and unsustainable.

    It seems like those who disagree appear to view the environment as a subset of the economy. The “economy’s best interests” must come first – even if it is at a cost to the environment (and the people who live within that environment). I just don’t think it’s possible to have a healthy sustainable economy without policies that first consider the impacts to the environment.

    Does that seem reasonable to you?

  7. 2011/03/12 at 21:06

    Simply put, several members have made it clear that it isn’t about environmental policy anymore, it’s about redistribution of wealth.

    You think costly carbon trading is going to do anything but increase prices? While the third world gets a pass so they can develop? No, prices we rise, business’s will relocate and we will have a lot of manufacturing out of our environmental control.

    Your position is reasonable, but you are simply forgetting the policies that we are talking about, the ones that are designed to hamstring the west.

  8. 2011/03/12 at 21:07

    members of the IPCC***

  9. 2011/03/12 at 21:25

    Again, I could consider alternatives IF there were some evidence put forth to support the “it will cost us too much” scenario. In general, I find that a capitalist system is pretty good at adapting, as long as real costs are being reflected. IF it starts costing more for gas, for instance, then that might hurt the big SUV industry, but the economy survives by developing a good gas mileage alternative. Or, IF autos in general start costing too much, that opens up business opportunities in mass transit and alternative transit.

    I just find the “it will cost too much” arguments lacking any solid evidence and, lacking solid evidence there and having real evidence on the environmental side, I favor the side with the most reasonable real world evidence.

  10. 2011/03/12 at 21:46

    You’re missing the point.

  11. 2011/03/12 at 23:33

    I don’t think so. What point do you think I’m missing?

    Why do you think my NOT preferring to have some evidence before agreeing with your policy preference is reasonable?

    Nate, do you think that the economy is a subset of the environment or the other way around, or would you not even describe it in those terms?

  12. 2011/03/13 at 00:34

    The point I think you were missing is that the policies being put forth don’t even have the goal of correcting the alleged problem.

    I wouldn’t even describe it in those terms. Everything is interwoven, I don’t think it is so clearly defined as one being a subset of the other.

  13. 2011/03/13 at 13:55

    The point I think you were missing is that the policies being put forth don’t even have the goal of correcting the alleged problem.

    And the point I think you’re missing from me is that I need some evidence for this. I’m sure you agree that any one can make any claim on the internets but that does not make it true, which is not a slam against you, just a reasonable point: That we ought to base policies on facts and evidence, not hunches and unsupported accusations.

  14. 2011/03/13 at 14:31

    http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/11/22/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-about-wealth-redistribution-not-environment/

    This guy is my favorite. I can provide a more in depth analysis of specific policies, but unless your google-fu is weak, I’d suggest you do a little sniffing around yourself. My head is swimming a little from my meds so I’m calling it quits for a while.

  15. 2011/03/14 at 07:11

    I’ve read the interview. In context, I don’t think he’s saying what you think he’s saying. I don’t have the time right now to parse it, but suffice to say: This is a quote out of context that has been used by those opposed to responsible action on environmental issues and in context, it doesn’t support their claim.

  16. 2011/03/14 at 07:24

    I don’t know how else to take someone who would say environmental policy isn’t about the environment.

  17. 2011/03/14 at 07:26

    As I am sure you can agree: As a rule, we ought to be wary of one line quotes lifted out of context from larger speeches/texts that are offered as “proof” of any point.

  18. 2011/03/14 at 07:27

    I’ve read the whole thing as well, I simply take a different view than you on what he was saying.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: