View Single Post
Old 09-11-2012, 01:18 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
I could say the same about convincing gullible hippy peace loving dimwits who'd do anything to make sure we revert back to pre industrial times that Global warming is the only thing thats true.
Totally agree with you on this.
I am totally opposed to this form of Gaiaism, this pagan logic of "we have raped mother Earth and now we are getting punished for it".
I am an atheist but I also deeply care about the monotheistic revolution which got rid of this pagan balance thinking (there is a drought so we gotta sacrifice a goat/virgin to soothe the fertility goddess). Namely Job and Jesus illustrate that we are basically on our own.

So yeah, when people talk about the Judeo-Christian legacy they might wanna keep this in mind. There is no natural balance or any sh*t like that.
Furthermore getting out of modernity is of course neither feasible nor desirable.

But just because there are some people who think that this is the solution to the problem doesn't imply that the problem doesn't exist. As you wrote in several posts you do not believe in it so you are hardly better than these Gaiaists.

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
If I may ask, it seems as though everyone here but me are absolutely CONVINCED that AGW is happening, and nothing can be done.
No. Average temperatures are rising which is a fact but whether it is indeed entirely caused by climate gas emissions is not totally clear. The likelihood is large but as anything in science it is not a 100%.
That nothing can be done is also wrong, of course reducing climate gas emissions and/or the ability of the ecosphere to transform CO2 into O2, i.e. trees, are measures that can alleviate the problem assuming that the greenhouse effect is the major cause of the rising temperatures.

As I explained in an earlier post the real issue is that once we take into account our reactions the problem is asymmetric. Not doing anything against really existing human-caused climate change will lead to a lot of damage whereas doing something against inexistant human-caused climate change will only lead, assuming that our only measure is to tax CO2 and subsidize forests and that you believe in the story told by Econ 101, to some mild misallocations. Too much trees, too few steel factories. Can be easily amended at very small costs whereas the destruction of entire ecosystems and the resulting migration and wars will lead to enormous costs and loss of human life.

Last edited by horatio : 09-11-2012 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote