Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:489B5CF0.3DC97598@xxxxxxxxxxx:



Kris Krieger wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE

Worth 2 mins 38 secs of your time.

If some people talk about dire consequences, it's mainly because most
people don't pay attention to anything else.

Of course, the intro phrase "THEY want you to believe the world is
about it end" sets the tone right off, i.e., makes very clear the
fact that we're not Americans, and certainly not citizens of the
world - no, the tone makes it obvious that we're nothing more than
either "them" or "us". Stupid. So no, it was not worth 2+ min of my
time. My own position has been made completely clear - there *are*
consequences to actions, and organisms *do* influence their
enviroment jsut as the environment influences organisms, and partisan
politics is divisive and unconstructive and usually goofy.

I agree with just about everything you say actually.

My own feeling is that the AGW side is 'over egging the cake' as we
say here and trying to eliminate valid debate. And if a slighly 'over
the top' film (as Gore's was) can redresss that balance, so much the
better.

Graham


sigh<

**EVERYONE** is "overegging". *That* is my point.

It's just like the current elections cirsus - we have two candidates for
President, which, like it or not, means, Candidates to be elected as a
person who will have very real, very definite, and very major effects
upon my life, your life, and the lives on all people living in the US,
*plus* on the lives of a bleep-load of people all around the world - and
what constitutes the "discussion"? A numbskulled reducto ad absurdem
wherein one side irrationally screams "Those people jsut say Drill the
sh*t out of the continent!", and that side irrationally screams back with
"Those people say Just inflate your tires". In fact, neither is that
simplistic, but oh, we're all just tickled pink to be treated like
nitwits, which is obvious ebcause so many people merely eat and
regurgitate, over and over, the exact same bit of rotten, rancid gristle.

This AGW:anti-AGW the same bleeping thing: Reducto ad absurdem, issues
that ahve been pared down to sound bites that are simply shouted over and
over.

Personally, I don't give a ruddy *** about who is "right" re: AGW. What
I care about is that it is *POSSIBLE* that AGW is underway, and *IF* it
is indeed underway, uh, like, well, maybe we'd be kind of stupid to do
nothing to plan for that possibility.

Let's put it this way. Every day, people lose their homes to fire or
flood. That is not only an emotional loss - it's a major economic loss
that will have a deep and tremendous impact upon the rest of that
family's life. Of course it does not haooen to *every* home, but it is a
*possibility*, it's a risk. So you know what people do (and I mean *do*
as opposed to just blither about)?

__People **buy insurance**.__

Do you "know" that your house will burn down, or get flooded out? Of
course not - but you look at the risks, and you buy *insurance* because
of the *POSSIBILITY*. Like, duuuuh. I don't know how much more the
concept can be dumbed-down.

What I also can't figure out is why something so inanely *simple* is so
incomprehensible. I see all these people blithering on and on about how
ever so very smart they are but how stupid the other person supposedly is
and blahblahblah yaddayaddayadda, and I'm sorry but it is all frigging
*assinine*, because what matters is not who is "right" (and frankly, I
hope like all bloody hell that AGW is NOT right!!), what metters is:
**how much risk the anti-AGW people want to make *us all* take on?**

You pay to insure your home, so yeah, like duuuh, we'll have to pay to
reduce *the risk* of AGW. And really, what is so freaking wrong with
trying to reduce the emissions, and esp. the stupid wastefulness, that
create not only CO2, but all sorts of other harmful pollutants, and piss
away resources? Why is that srt of insurance a bad thing? Why is
*insurance against a possibility* wrong?

Note too, please, that *I'm* not the one who is sitting around saying
what a genius I am and what idiots other people are - anyway, nobody here
is an idiot, otherwise they wouldn't be able to put together a coherent
paragraph at all. What I do have, which seems to be in distressingly
short supply, is *more simple common sense than God gave a cabbage*.
WHich means, I know about trying to avoid financial risk - so I have home
insurance, and save/invest towards retirement (because of the risk that
social security will tank), and so on. Therefore, I also have enough
simple common sense to realize that AGW is a *risk*, like any other risk,
and to realize that, like, uh, it might be sorta-kinda smart to have some
insurance, so to speak, against it.


OK, so, what is the worst that can happen if you're right, but everyone
else takes steps to reduce waste, reduce pollution, and develop
"greener" technologies? What? We'll have cleaner air? The incidence of
childhood asthma would go down to previous percentage rates? We'd have
fewer asexual (hence non-reproducing) fish and other wildlife, fewer
three-legged frogs? More trees? Homes that are more comfortable due to
better thermal control? More business opportunities might open up? Mor
eindustries might remain "at home" so to speak, because it might be
cheaper than sending work everywhere else, and we might then have enough
of an economyu again to help otehr countries develop their own economies?
So if the world doesn't implode, hooray, you were right, and nothing bad
happend.

But what if you are wrong?, what if AGW is correct, and *we* are all led
to take *your* risk......?

Frankly, that is not a risk I'm willing to take, not for myself and not
for future generations - and I do not acknowledge any right on your part
to *force* me/others to take it.


.

Quantcast