It appears you have layman on the mind.
One thing no one commented on is that lately the media seems to think Al Gore invented global warming. The idea of humans causing global warming has been around for decades, and as time has gone on, more and more evidence has accumlated. There’s been a scientific concensus for it for a long time. Then Al Gore makes a movie about it, and suddenly anyone who believes in global warming is an Al Gore fanboy? The nice thing about science is that it doesn’t matter who says what, what matters is what the data says. Al Gore is doing a great service to the world for getting the message out there, but global warming doesn’t exist because Al Gore says it does, it exists because that’s what the data says.
One of those things is not like the others, ISTM. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to give up your computer, and I can understand why you wouldn’t want to bike to work if you don’t like bicycling, and I can understand why you wouldn’t want to buy a small car if you like big cars.
But why on earth would you not want to turn off lights in your house that you’re not actually using? Even every light in your house that you’re not actually using? What possible good does it do you to have lights merrily burning away in rooms of your house that are unoccupied? Is it really that much work to hit the switch by the door when you enter or leave a room?
This strange combination of complaints is puzzling to me. I can see why you would object to the prospect of cutting back on energy consumption when it interferes with things you actually need or enjoy. But complaining about the prospect of turning off lights that you’re not even using seems like just a commitment to wastefulness for its own sake. I don’t understand that at all.
You’re right, it’s not. It’s germane.
Oh, baby, give him one more chance.
ohhh. I was wondering what he had against the Germans.
A 40 watt compact fluorescent bulb would put out the equivalent amount of light as something like a 150 watt incandescent. Not exactly huddling in the dark, there.
Just sayin’.
I’m a rational, scientific kinda guy, so I believe the scientific consensus on global warming. But that’s not really the question to folks who would call it a Big Lie. The question is, given global warming, what should we do?
Put me down in the camp that says, short of a global government with enforcement powers, there’s very little we can do about it in the near term.
Given that, I worry about impending the War on Warming just as I worry about the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, poverty, etc…
So rather than a bunch of half-assed measures, which foolishly depend on the voluntary cooperation of the rest of the globe and which waste money and resources, we should spend most of our attention on making ourselves prepared for the effects of global warming. Of course, there is no precedent, and these two normative choices are often at odds.
Here’s a sentence from a crappy article I wrote on the subject:
“Rather than trying to prevent human folly, which we have always failed to do up to this point, why don’t we focus on building the economy and the infrastructure so that when the consequences of human folly arise in their varied forms, we are best prepared to step up and handle it. Consequences are much easier to handle. They are more definite, measurable, and predictable than many follies of the free will.”
In sum, I hate to see anyone who resists the coming War on Warming depicted as anti-scientific since our reaction to the problem is political, not scientific.
And if we want to help folks, there are plenty of problems we could actually solve out there that are better suited to our limited ability to act selflessly for the common good.
What makes the say-so of other scientists better than his view? Numerical majority only?
Do you think that the brainwashed tend to become intemperate when they perceive that their views are being challenged?
Oh God, it’s you again. Actually, please don’t ever let up with this stuff! I’ve really come to appreciate your attempted political equivalencies, in much the same way as I enjoy seeing a really ridiculous B-movie. Though I wouldn’t exactly call you The Brain From Planet Arous.
Others have already addressed your misperceptions. Would you care to learn from what they told you?
Pretty much. Every national scientific entity agrees and one guy paid buy special interests disagrees.
Going by your example, I’d say yes.
I suppose, though I’d welcome correction, that your point here is this: Some brainwashed people can become intemperate when their views are challenged. Some believers in global warming can become intemperate when their views are challenged. Therefore, believers in global warming are brainwashed.
At least, that’s the only point I can see you attempting to make here. Assuming I’ve read you correctly, you need to brush up on logic.
If people are being intemperate with you, brazil84, I would wager even money that their hostility had nothing to do with their being “brainwashed”, and everything to do with your being really fucking annoying. You rarely put forward any positive assertions of your own, and your record of substantiating those occasional assertions you do make with cites is spotty at best. You almost never elaborate, instead being content to make ambiguous, yet oddly snippy little two line posts from the sidelines while those posters with actual arguments do all the hard work. In short, you’re the debating equivalent of a kid with a dinky little peashooter providing covering fire to six kids with SuperSoaker 5000’s. You think you have more impact than you actually do.
Look, I know you fancy yourself as a laconic gadfly, wielding the Socratic method like a fucking diamond cutter to eviscerate the empty preconceptions of the Chattering Classes. But in reality, you’re just an irritating little tit. And that’s why people are intemperate with you.
I would ask what a shill for Exxon is doing hanging out at this board?
Have you been an asshole your entire life?
Do you enjoy taking money for your own short term personal gain at the expense of the entire planet and the future?
How does it feel to be a soulless bloodsucking piece of scum?
Er, dude, that’s a bit harsh!
Do we know that brazil84 is a corporate shill? I’d also say that there are a whole bunch of people in the world who can’t see the bigger picture, that doesn’t necessarily make them evil, just short-sighted.
(ETA As they say, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity)
Actually, Nancarrow, I think What Exit may have been posting what he would say to Richard Lindzen if he ever met him. I could be wrong, but I think that’s what he’s doing.
If I could find 3 more scientists on Lindzen’s side, would that change your mind?
That’s nonsense. I’ve clearly stated my position on AGW and defended it against hostile questioning and in a civil manner. Which is more than a lot of people on the other side can say.
My mind is open. I believed in AGW back in the 90s, but have changed my mind since then. I may yet change my mind again.
If you could demonstrate that the consensus on global warming was opposed by a number of scientists equivalent to, say, 10% of those who support it, that would be a good start.
I think you may be on to something there! :o
Yes.
By about (3/100000)=0.003%.
(okay, the 100000 is a guesstimate. But if I’m out by even a factor of 10, my point still stands)