Yes, yes... You can call me a tree-hugger if you like. And, you may disagree with many of those like me, who believe our world is in dramatic flux due to our trashing up the place.
I'm okay with that.
Perhaps, though, we could look at the climate-change argument a little differently.
Take the following vid by wonderingmind42 for example. The discussion isn't about who is right or wrong regarding climate issues. More importantly, it is about exploring the possible results for choosing to do nothing at all about global warming.
Thanks to wonderingmind42 for sharing this video.
8 comments:
OK, you are a tree hugger. : )
Hey, said to do it! I'm just following instructions!!
May we also explore the global cooling theories of the 70's? In which certain scientists warned of certain global disaster if we didn't do anything! Had we listened to the environmentalists then, we would have used nuclear warheads to melt the growing icecaps!!
you wish for the opposing side to grant your arguement as being correct to further the discussion. this is fundamentally flawed. Anyone who would debate this issue would kill their counterarguments by accepting your premise. : )
Around the time global cooling was the topic, papers were being written by other scientists. The topic? Global warming. Yet due to the brief period when the temp did not appear to be rising, there seemed to be little support for the concept of global warming. Even still, the general consensus among scientists in the 70's was that temperatures would continue to rise, caused both by natural and man-made activities.
(What someone else said about the "cooling" argument:
jfleck on global cooling)
As for taking drastic action to "fix" the climate, as it were...
Perhaps, it is good not to make decisions based on what a small percentage of scientists are theorizing.
That said, I don't see why development of new tech to power the world in a clean way is such a problem for those who disbelieve climate change theories. It isn't quite the same as nuking the ice caps. There are certainly more than just environmental reasons for advancing clean energy.
Besides all that, the children could use a breath of fresh air. :o)
American Lung Association on Air Quality
The idea of cleaner energy isn't opposed, generally, by people who oppose global warming. But, tree huggers want to claim it is so for the sake of claiming th moral high ground in the conversation. The fact that information from the global warming people is inaccurate and distorted changes the conversation from one of the value of cleaner energy to that of correcting the bad science of others... it's kinda like PETA making things bad for people who want to improve animal rights... : )
" But, tree huggers want to claim it is so for the sake of claiming th moral high ground in the conversation."
That's interesting. I've never heard that before.
My point was not to claim the morality award, but to suggest there is no good reason not to strive for clean energy. The bonus is having a cleaner environment, no matter who wins the global warming argument.
I'm always thinking of Easter Island when talking about this topic. Didn't their civilization fall due to reckless destruction of their environment?
anon, and whoever you are. i have to say that you must not be one of the liberals. i think it's fair to acknowledging the potential distructions and trying to reduce or prevent more contribution to the current messes. be naive if you like, things aren't looking too good for the planet earth. polar bears and the baluga whales are at least safe for now. salute to that.
I love that guy! He's definitely got my vote for rational logical approach. Sure it could be all bunk; sure it could be a system shift that we can not avoid; but as he so eloquently points out, it's a better insurance to bet we can affect it and try. Glad you found him and liked him.
:j
:o)
Post a Comment