Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

We Are In The Test Tube

Okay- you’re tired of combatting those who say that anthropogenic climate change is a farce. You’ve had it up to your eyeballs trying to get the naysayers past the “Al Gore factor” in the climate debate. Funny how even the smartest conservatives you know prefer to pander the party line on climate and environmental issues than accept that we may in fact be in a world of hurt if we don’t change our ways.

Maybe this approach to the issue can help change their minds…

Watch the 10 minute video presentation, then learn to use this approach when the conversation allows. Only the most obstinate will deny the common sense approach that shows that inaction is the worst of all possible options when it comes to dealing with global climate destabilization.

Happy New Year.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • blinkbits
  • BlinkList
  • blogmarks
  • digg
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb

RSS feed | Trackback URI

31 Comments in 15 threads.»

Pages: [2] 1 » Show All

Trackback by horse insurance
2008-02-26 15:48:47

horse insurance

canvassers incestuous McGuire!

Trackback by video póquer
2008-02-22 02:40:09

video póquer

nemesis Schuylkill,confused

Trackback by migliori casino in italiano
2008-02-17 08:53:29

migliori casino in italiano

inaugurate,storehouse jot crewcut girth resumption

Trackback by health insurance on line quotes
2008-02-08 02:59:15

health insurance on line quotes

tray Grenville Reinhard reflexiveness

Comment by christopher Radulich Subscribed to comments via email
2008-01-04 18:36:03

Yes I have read the non global warming theories. their basic argument ( as far as I can tell) is that we are to insignificant to matter.

Having studied chemistry I know that is a false argument.

Having studied history I know that is a false argument.

then there is the old adage - The straw that broke the camels back.

Comment by Liberal Jarhead
2008-01-04 08:36:57

A lot of red herrings and straw men here…
We can see these things (in fact, the only way to avoid seeing them is to stick one’s fingers in one’s ears, close one’s eyes, and hum loudly):
1. The world is getting hotter, as shown by record temperatures, heat waves, record meltoffs in the Arctic, Greenland, the Himalayas, and Antarctica, and the data indicate that the process is speeding up.
2. This is bad for us - rising sea levels are already displacing communities in some places and, if they continue, will jeopardize coastal populations and major cities like NY, London, LA, Miami, the Low Countries, a lot of China, etc.; the changes in weather patterns are already hurting the production of food crops, and some of the glacier fields that are shrinking fast provide the water for large chunks of the human race.
3. Human activity is contributing to this change.
To sum it up - bad things are happening in the world and we’re partly causing them. Given that, it seems as if arguing about exactly how much we’re contributing or how bad the change will be how soon is shortsighted.

The reasonable thing to do is to slow this process down to whatever extent we can, whether that’s a small amount or a lot, because anything that gives us more time to prepare and adapt will save lives.

Our culture has a dysfunctional pattern of reacting to problems by first asking, “Whose fault is this?” rather than “How do we solve it?” Sometimes fixing blame is a waste of time. This seems like one of those times.

As for the end of the human race, that does seem unlikely in terms of total extinction, but it is likely that unprecedented numbers of people will die, economies will be destroyed, and the species may well be reduced considerably in numbers and in standards of living and in the maintenance of any technology that requires sophisticated large-scale infrastructure. That’s liable to do more damage to national and world economies than anything we do to try to slow it down.

We can, if we do it intelligently, boost rather than hurt our economies in the process of slowing down climate change. There will be specific industries that suffer or go away, but others will appear and grow. There’s room for a lot of good jobs- for example, in the tech sector building renewable energy systems, and in construction, infilling cities to reduce sprawl and thereby reduce fuel burned commuting. Other things we could be doing: a lot of people could be telecommuting if management was more flexible and open to the possibility, and who wouldn’t rather work at home if they could? Some changes in the way we build our homes and other structures, many of which can be retrofitted, can save huge amounts of energy on heating and cooling. Some ideas offer the possibility of generating tens of thousands of jobs on national infrastructure projects, like the TVA and other parts of the New Deal or like the interstate highway system forty years ago: one would be to build massive wind and solar energy complexes in the relatively empty Southwest, also build a cross-country network of large water pipelines like the irrigation projects that now exist but on a larger scale, and carry out flood relief in the east by pumping the water to the west where it’s needed in exchange for energy from the west.

Bottom line, when faced with the danger of a catastrophe, even if it’s only a strong possibility rather than a certainty, the rational response is to take prompt and energetic action to prevent it or minimize the damage. Any other reaction smacks of denial and the temporarily comforting delusion that if we don’t look at it, it isn’t there.

I don’t worry so much for myself - I’m middle-aged and have already had a good life, and if the roof fell in on me tomorrow I’d be mildly disappointed but relatively content with my lot - but I have kids who are in their 20s and grandkids who are 4 and 6, and I’d kind of like it if their lives could be nice too. Right now that looks pretty iffy and that makes me sad.

Comment by Lisa
2008-01-03 21:30:47

we are going to be oliminated by another ice age in about 1 million years or so anyway so what do the Global Warming Alarmists think that they can add another 100 more years to that million by going with this plan?

Comment by me
2008-01-03 17:54:01


I’ll be responding to your comments in a new thread here.

Also, I found the page that you directed me to. I’ll be reading from the various links. There are too many to hope to make a response to them here. I take them as education rather than as a springboard for our debate if for no other reason, reading through all the material will take too long.

But the central point is the same: Doing nothing, which is your current solution, is not a neutral solution.

I’m not suggesting we do nothing. I’m suggesting that if one wants my support for a particular policy, they’d better have something better than a two square by two square chart and tell me that I don’t have to believe something is true; as long as there exists a possibility that it is true, however, I should act as though it is true. No thanks. Not interested. I don’t even act on some things that I do know to be true.

I know, for example, that planes sometimes fall out of the sky and that I could be in its path when it falls. I could die therefrom. I believe this is absolutely a possibility. I could avoid that ever happening by living in a hardened underground bunker built to withstand a plane crash but I don’t. Not because I don’t believe it could happen but because I see the likelihood of it happening to be so remote that I live each day rarely looking up and never doing so to confirm that no plane is about to crash on me. The earth could open up and swallow me up. I don’t cower in the corner worrying about each creak of the house. I live and go through my day as if the earth will always remain firmly under my feet.

My point is this. If one wishes to convince me to act, I need to know the kinds of information that my questions ask for. I don’t mean about the warming. I admitted up front that warming is occurring and that humans are adding to it. I’m talking about specific policies. Kyoto, for example. That hasn’t worked out well even where nations have signed on and committed themselves to meeting its guidelines, never mind the nations that didn’t or were exempted by Kyoto itself. I don’t think that asking things like “Will it do what we want it to do?” is irrational and if I don’t believe it will make a significant reduction in global greenhouse gasses but will disproportionately effect the economy of the United States without meeting its goals, I see no reason to sign on to Kyoto. You want my support, convince me. Answer my questions about the specific policy and you’ve got my support. Don’t just throw some policy at me, tell me that, worst case scenario is that most humans die and say that, because I can’t say that that worst case scenario won’t happen, therefore I must sign on to Kyoto or whatever policy prescription will follow Kyoto. There’s a gap there that can only be filled, for me, by answering the questions I asked.

That also has risks. You don’t seem to accept that and think we have unlimited time to find a perfect solution. According to the scientists (who as I don’t have any more expert knowledge than you do I have to rely on) we do not have more than about a decade to start reducing mankind’s contribution or we’ll reach a tipping point and then we can’t stop it.

I don’t believe that we can stop it and therefore I don’t believe anyone who says that we can. In my opinion, the options aren’t humans stopping global warming by heroic acts of devastating their own economies or humans foolishly and selfishly failing to stop global warming. Global warming will stop on its own, as it has for hundreds of millions of years.

As I’ve said, I don’t believe that even if we stopped altogether, globally, 100% of human contributions to the greenhouse effect, that that will stop global warming. Why not? Because humans are not the sole cause of global warming. Global climate change has natural, non-human causes as well as human contributed causes. This may seem like a small point but it’s not for me. The most we can do is try to lessen our contributions. Should we? Sure. How? I don’t know. Give me an example policy and answer my questions about that policy. Otherwise, why should I back a policy that I may think will crush our economy and leave us ill equipped to deal with the effects of warming that are going to happen even if we stop all ghg production by human causes? It makes no sense to me. We’ll need the strongest economy possible to deal with warming’s effects.

That may be the biggest stumbling block in my way here. People tell me that we can stop global warming and I don’t believe it. I’ve seen the millions of years of cyclical warming and cooling going back long before humans existed. Something starts the earth warming. Perhaps a number of somethings. The earth warms, not in a straight graph line but averages show an upward trend followed, about 800 years later by rises in CO2 levels. Temps warm and CO2 levels rise until they stop and reverse. It will stop when whatever causes global warming to stop and it will begin to fall again.

Maybe the scientific consensus is that humans can stop the warming. If so, I guess I’m wrong. Hey. It’s happened before. :^)

So please explain why you want to waste time looking for a mythical perfect solution or more proof.

Again, it’s not proof of warming that I’m looking for. It’s convincing evidence that this, that, or some other particular policy will do what we want without destroying the global economy, that’s all.

Anyway, I’m taking a break now. My wife and I are re-watching the Ken Burnes documentary on The Civil War.

By the way, don’t take it too badly if you don’t convince me. My wife tells me I’m sometimes a bull-headed, block-head. I guess she should know. :^)

Comment by Paul Watson
2008-01-03 18:17:06

I’ll try not to take it personally. ;-)

Although my family says much the same about me, so, as I think we’ve proved enough times, we could go round and round for a while.

Comment by Christopher Radulich Subscribed to comments via email
2008-01-03 13:09:58

We have been affecting the earth since we started agriculture because that is when we started deforesting the planet. We have accelerated it since the start of the industrial age.

It does not matter how big our absolute contribution is. The question is does our input tip the balance. The books I’ve read make a powerful case that they do.

So do we wiat until there is absolute proff, at which point we will probable be between twenty and thirty years to late, or do we try to do something now?

Comment by Steve
2008-01-03 17:04:25

So do you only read stuff that is pro global warming?

Comment by Paul Watson
2008-01-03 17:19:49

I refer you to the page below (check out the 7 climate change myths. One of them is exactly what Chris is refuting):

Comment by steve
2008-01-03 19:31:53

British Colonialization in the past is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide. If you has left all those people you conquered in the stone age Paul, we wouldn’t have this problem wih the pollution of an ever expanding global economy. Damn you imperialist Swine!!! I piss on the crown!!!

(Comments won't nest below this level)
Comment by Paul Watson
2008-01-04 09:16:19

You’re right. If we hadn’t let you bloody colonials have any power, the world would be a lot better off.

Comment by Jersey McJones
2008-01-03 09:16:52

Was the point of the video completely lost on every con on this blog??? Can you guys just try to debate the actual point of the video???


Comment by me
2008-01-03 12:06:26

The video simply argues that we should do something. It doesn’t tell us what policies, if any, should be followed. I’ve thought a bit about that and I have some questions that I need answered before getting behind any particular policies.

Comment by Steve
2008-01-03 17:02:38

Heh… Jersey… I was merely pointing out this guys lack of sexual experience to think about stuff like this… Sorry you were expecting a debate.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> in your comment.