Global warming worse than expected

"So habitability is our principle of intelligibility, or at least it seems to be according to this explanation. Climate change is either good or bad according to the degree that it contributes to a livable environment. Do I have you correct?"

So basically it's being selfish.
wink.gif
 
Coel - I see what you're trying to do. My personal opinion is that climate change is "bad" when man's actions have substantially altered the "natural" course of climate. Please don't argue that coal-burning power plants are also "natural" because perhaps I haven't thought of the best word, but you know what I mean.
 
No. But I wonder whether or not they've succumbed to groupthink.
 
As for my opinion on the truth about climate change: I think it is a natural part of the world we live in. Opposing climate change is like protesting against a thunderstorm.
 
And we can stop climate change? The environmentalists are now in open revolt against nature.

I think it was Nietzsche who said it best: "You who fight demons beware, lest you become the very thing you seek to destroy."
 
Ok sorry Coel...your argument is that IF our actions have changed climate change, then fighting that change is unnatural.

That wasn't the point of my post though, and you know that.
 
Proactive approaches like this,The Link , are what we should concentrate on with respect to all of the impending changes that global warming will bring.

quit whining and be proactive. embrace our new global warming overlords. learn to maximize their visit till the next earth geocycle returns us to the global cooling scare.... and be ready to maximize that too.
 
as an observer of this discussion i would point out that one issue is a simple cost benefit analysis. meaning....that even if one were to grant the direst of predictions by global warming alarmists (none of which ever seem to come to pass but i digress), we still have not gotten a grasp on what trillions of dollars and untold suffering (in terms of holding back more primitive cultures from modernization afforded us by our own "selfish" pasts not to mention the toughest economic situation in 30 years) would get us. how many trillions would get us what in terms of "relief" from go called AGW?
 
For the purposes of a discussion on the causes of climate change, 'CO2 emission' defines pollution. You can ask that I demonstrate the deliterious effects of CO2 on the environment but I think you know that that would be easy enough to do. I would simply link you to that part of the IPCC report that deals with the effects of greenhouse gases.

As for intelligibility, Coelacanth, what is there about this issue that you don't understand? If we continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate we will contribute to changes in the global environment that our children will damn us for. Seems intelligible.

texasflag.gif
 
Mop is correct in that CO2 is being offered as an example, not a definition. Sorry to those who are in the wrong on this one, but it is cut and dried. There are other examples (e.g., CH4) so CO2 absolutely can not be the definition.
 
GT WT,

Do you not understand the difference between an example and a definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top