Reply With Quote
I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
A cute analogy but CO2 is a naturally occurring component of air (although much less than 1%) and it's a giant leap of faith to attribute global warming to tiny percentage changes in a gas that is a tiny percent of air to start with.
I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
It's like taking your doctor's advice, TeyshaBlue. You don't ask him why. You just do it.
No, its like not believing your doctor when he tells you that you have cancer because both the doctor and the tumor are wrong and you know this based upon well, that doesn't matter.
Bad analogy. I question my doctor constatnly because he is motivated 100% by profit. He's a ing Ferengi.
On the other hand, that might not be such a bad analogy.
(Slight recursion to a former state of the conversation, sorry.)
You know, I actually typed out a response then I reread it and a light bulb came on.I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
Well played. Very very very well played.
The argument has never been that simple, though.
It gets demonized/politicized through the assumed implication that the presence of human kind is inherently evil and that we alone are killing our precious Earth mother. Which would, of course, be short-sighted and wrong. But no one is saying that. The cause/effect assumption is not simply "man make temperature rise," but rather that human kind, through certain actions, has had enough of an impact on the environment in which we live that the temperature is rising at a faster rate than it would if we weren't here and that human kind, through certain other actions, could reduce, or at least slow, their negative impact on the environmental factors which contribute to rising temperatures. The argument actually being made, when stripped of all the reactionary politics that have been heaped upon it, is quite reasonable. Common sense, even.
It's impossible for an organism to not affect/change the environment in which it lives. Impossible. I know I've used this analogy here before, but it really is like a fish bowl. A fish bowl, filled with water/plants/gravel/etc. but without fish, will over time get dirty. The water will cloud, the plants and gravel will likely develop molds and algae, all on their own. But it will take a while. Add a fish, however, and it will happen much faster. Add several fish, and it will happen even faster. Not because the fish are evil, or because they're doing bad/evil things, but just because they're being fish. Thinking that we can somehow live in our own fish bowl without eventually clouding the water is just willfully ignorant.
Ferengi...Bad analogy. I question my doctor constatnly because he is motivated 100% by profit. He's a ing Ferengi.
On the other hand, that might not be such a bad analogy.
Man if ever an image calls for a photoshop, that would be it. Quark in a doctor's lab coat with a stethescope, and a caption along the lines of "I can fix anything for enough pressed latinum..."
... as do the scientists directly funded by companies involved in the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, who, strangely enough, start sounding su iously like tobacco company "scientists" who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer.
We can still formulate some reasonable courses of action to avoid the worst risks, even if the science isn't perfectly settled.
I don't need to know how many inches there are between me and the cliff to know that I probably should stop my car before it gets there.
How many times have I blown the CO2 theory?
Please... You AGW theory guys are stuck on stupid. Show me some hard evidence.
I see....
Darrin, pick up a dictionary. Look up the word faith. Thanks.
It's your religion!
Thanks for clarifying that.
Very true. It isn't anywhere close.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
