Shooting at the Holocaust Museum (Now with Global Warming)

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Wouldn't it be more likely that it represents the end of our civilization forever?

It could go either way, depending on how bad we fuck things up!

[BitVyper]

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, there are two Worst Case Scenarios.

1. global warming is true and we do nothing and civilization ends.

2. global warming is not true and we waste a lot of time and energy to invent all kinds of technology and industries that aren't needed to save our lives, but have plenty of uses anyway.

That's pretty much just the global warming version of Pascal's Wager. Acting as if something is true just to be on the safe side is best in scenarios that can be resolved quickly. When it affects peoples' entire lives, and every politician is using it to try and push a political agenda, then no; I'll go with the side I actually think is true. Even if the stakes are high. This isn't "the world will blow up tomorrow if we don't do something," it's a situation that can be stretched out into infinity.

The idea of global warming being caused by humans touches too many aspects of our lives for us to design policy based on playing-it-safe. I don't really care about the big-business side of things; I'm in favour of energy efficiency and less dependency on oil anyway. However the little things that are getting pulled here and there, justified because it's just plain wrong to oppose anything that "fights" [insert environmental problem] are getting to be a bigger and bigger issue.

Also this mentality:

It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

Is why I pretty much don't even bother to discuss global warming directly anymore. Once you hit the point where you're calling the opposition "morally repugnant" because they don't believe in something that has nothing to do with morals, we've pretty much lost all possibility for constructive discussion. This is a bit sad, because there's people out there I'd LIKE to talk to about the matter because discussion is how I learn, but I can't stomach this kind of mentality.

[Kurosen]

Sorry, I'd rather be paranoid and wrong than "ho-hum" and dead.

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Kurosen

Sorry, I'd rather be paranoid and wrong than "ho-hum" and dead.

Then be paranoid and right/wrong. I won't pass moral judgement on you for it.

[Kurosen]

Let me rephrase.

In cases of the very real possibility of the death of humankind, I'd rather be paranoid that it could happen and take actions to ensure that it does not even if it turns out this paranoia was ultimately unfounded.

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by Kurosen

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!

The thing is that they're mostly worried about the massive amounts of time, energy, and resources that would need to be put forward to make the necessary changes.

The often neglected part is that these changes should be made anyway, even if there isn't a significant crisis. It's just that making these changes has some amount of risk and has no immediate profit gains, so none of the big businesses want to spring for it. Because obviously short-term profits (short-term is now defined as like in the next 1~10 years) is more important than the advancement of mankind or something.

[Aerozord]

For the record, Nazis aren't christian, thats a common misconception. During the war it was just a lower priority target. ie They wouldn't kill you just for being a christian. Though if a priest explained how genocide was a sin he'd find his church on fire assuming he lived long enough to find out.

Originally Posted by BitVyper

That's pretty much just the global warming version of Pascal's Wager. Acting as if something is true just to be on the safe side is best in scenarios that can be resolved quickly. When it affects peoples' entire lives, and every politician is using it to try and push a political agenda, then no; I'll go with the side I actually think is true. Even if the stakes are high. This isn't "the world will blow up tomorrow if we don't do something," it's a situation that can be stretched out into infinity.

Its also a logical falacy to think 'its bad so it isn't happening'. In the literal sense global warming is fact. The average tempurature of the planet has gone up. The planet Earth (globe) is experiencing higher tempuratures (warming).

In any case I agree we should care either way but for a different reason. Polution is bad, I dont care if it heats up the planet or not there are plenty of other reasons to want to get rid of it. People were trying to reduce smog decades before the concept of global warming existed. They are just more vocal because instead of quality of life lowering they now realize it could shift climates to the point point food production drops 75% in a hundred years.

In other words if they got 100% factual scientific proof that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 does not now, nor will it ever cause any type of tempurature shift. I'd still say we should work to stop it, because there are other reasons polution is bad

[Kurosen]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

entire post

Which is why I toss around phrases like "morally repugnant." It's a handful of institutions putting the fate of every living person in jeopardy for the sake of making themselves slightly more money than they would if they did the right thing.

[Grognor]

Forgive me for talking about the original topic, but it's incidents like these that make me wonder why I'm still a philanthropist. Despite my entire life's story and despite everyone else's entire life story, I cling to my own misguided ideals. Here I am you are me; aren't we the same?

[GodHand Prime]

Originally Posted by Kurosen

Let me rephrase.

In cases of the very real possibility of the death of humankind, I'd rather be paranoid that it could happen and take actions to ensure that it does not even if it turns out this paranoia was ultimately unfounded.

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!

Except how this is very, very much not the case.

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.

What about the morality of causing a complete shutdown of our way of life? Suddenly eschewing all currently viable power sources in favor of experimental power sources that one day, decades down the road, might be able to power the necessary devices for our world to work as it is now would have a few consequences, I think.

What about the morality of spending billions of dollars to fix a problem we don't have? Our economy is a mess right now, and flagrant, whimsical government spending is making it worse. The US government is spending an absurd amount of money on global warming activism. That's money that could've been not borrowed and not spent, lessening the strain on US credit which will cause economic catastrophe and huge amounts of suffering in the global economic fallout.

What about the morality of, well, lying? The polar ice caps have been growing again for two years, while the activists shriek about how they're shrinking. (See the satellite photos from the University of Illinois web site for documentation.) The best meteorological experts in the world - those at the University of Oklahoma - are never asked for their opinion, because it is known that they don't support the hoax. All in all, the 'science' supporting man-made global warming is shoddy and weak. It has been repeatedly demonstrated false The problem is that it is no longer science. It is religious dogma that is politically useful to both sides.

But then, the only costs are the world economy, our way of life, the lives of the poor, our integrity, and the principles of science. A small price to pay for the power rush of believing mankind capable of ruining the world, and the self-importance of believing you can fix it.

Yeah, it's awful of those global warming naysayers to try to prevent people from causing unnecessary mayhem and death.

EDIT:"In the literal sense global warming is fact. The average tempurature of the planet has gone up. The planet Earth (globe) is experiencing higher tempuratures (warming)." This is truly a fact. As opposed to an opinion. The difference between the two is that a fact is falsifiable, and opinion is not. In this case, the fact is false. The warming trend is over. Global climate has been cooling for a while now. Global warming activists don't recognize it, because their model suggests that cooling is only possible in the event of catastrophe, and catastrophe isn't here.