Quote:
Originally Posted by gpsman1
Let me know if I'm talking to a brick wall and I will stop.
|
My my, lots of disdain have we...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpsman1
We have lots of evidence, I would even say "proof" that the planet is warming.
Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.
Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?
I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.
Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?
I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.
|
Somehow I dont disagree with anything you say, I just disagree with how you seem to think your priority in doing your part to help with today's problem is the best way (...if not stated, it sure comes across like it). I can easily use your own argument against the use of ethanol: "I say we have much bigger problems to fix before FOREIGN OIL IDEPENDENCY <ie ethanol and hydrogen>" like clean water for african children, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpsman1
The sick child with no clean water is not going to benefit from cooling the planet 1 degree. It's unlikely your child will gain anything from it either.
After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.
|
Argument by citing degree change in temperature is detrimental to the issue of climate change (unless that's your intent). It's little changes in a global scale that would have devastating effects, ESPECIALLY to the poorest part of the world who do not have the resources to cope when adjustment occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpsman1
IMHO people with nothing other than GW on the brain have priorities way out of whack. After we cure the sick and feed the hungry, I'm all in favor of spending surplus money on global cooling.
Peace, Love, Happiness!
 |
Wow, let's lump everyone who tries do what they can for our environment and the issue of climate change as wacky. The more issues, including one of the more prominent in the psyche of Americans, right now, i.e. GW, the better for the world in general. Not everyone can be Brad&Angelina for Africans, but everyone can collectively reduce waste and be more energy efficient (including big business and government) when Climate Change is on their mind. Saving the polar bears is not a goal to spend wasteful resources on itself, but by knowing that and put it forefront makes us more aware that we are incrementally destroying our environment, and allows us to do our little bit to amend, that collectively, can help, in more than one goal, I might add.
Love, Peace, Happiness!
(hey, same wants, just different ways)