After having read (many) and participated in (few) discussions about global warming (and other environmental issues), it has become clear to me that there are two main camps:
1) Those who feel the Earth and its natural systems are the pure good and anything that detracts from them is some form of evil 2) Those who feel that humans and their endeavors are the pure good and anything that detracts from them is some form of evil
Of course, there are many shades of gray, such as those who believe that human endeavors are an extension of Earth's natural systems, etc., but for the purposes of the following argument, those are not important. I'm addressing the people who generally fall into camp 2), e.g., people who more-or-less follow Michael Crichton's line of reasoning, which can be summed up:
"[The science that implicates human-caused global warming, while popular, is not well supported and is riddled with bias and ulterior motives. Research that indicates that global warming may not be occurring, or that it may not be human-caused, or that it may not have such bad effects, is being supressed by the prevailing alarmist dogma. When given true balance, the research results on the table do not give a compelling reason to adjust our way of life [which, being a human endeavor, trumps any adjustment of the Earth and its natural systems that we may be educing.]]"
To not step outside the boundaries of camp 2), I will argue on their terms:
I'll entertain the notion that the science of global warming, taken in balance as it currently stands, may be inconclusive. There may or may not be global warming, it may or may not be human-caused, and the consequences may or may not be severe. There is uncertainty. We are unsure what might happen. There might be disaster (defined by massive disruption to human endeavors), but there might not be.
BUT - isn't the "might" provided by much of the science enough? Aren't human endeavors important enough that we should modify our actions to minimize the risk of disaster (as defined above)? Just as the risk of terrorism caused us to modify our actions when boarding planes? Just as the risk of fires causes us to modify our building codes? Etc. Why wait until the science is 100% bulletproof, at which time the problem could potentially be much worse, to put in place preventative measures? Are the possible consequences of "doing something" even more than a shadow of the possible consequences of "doing nothing"? It seems to me that there's just as much at stake for camp 2) members as camp 1) members, so why do so many of you think we shouldn't do anything? I'm genuinely curious! I would like to hear a good explanation of that by someone who really thinks we should do nothing.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm in camp 1), but I know it's largely futile to entice most camp 2) members to switch camps! [grin]
Slashdot Mirror
After having read (many) and participated in (few) discussions about global warming (and other environmental issues), it has become clear to me that there are two main camps:
1) Those who feel the Earth and its natural systems are the pure good and anything that detracts from them is some form of evil
2) Those who feel that humans and their endeavors are the pure good and anything that detracts from them is some form of evil
Of course, there are many shades of gray, such as those who believe that human endeavors are an extension of Earth's natural systems, etc., but for the purposes of the following argument, those are not important. I'm addressing the people who generally fall into camp 2), e.g., people who more-or-less follow Michael Crichton's line of reasoning, which can be summed up:
"[The science that implicates human-caused global warming, while popular, is not well supported and is riddled with bias and ulterior motives. Research that indicates that global warming may not be occurring, or that it may not be human-caused, or that it may not have such bad effects, is being supressed by the prevailing alarmist dogma. When given true balance, the research results on the table do not give a compelling reason to adjust our way of life [which, being a human endeavor, trumps any adjustment of the Earth and its natural systems that we may be educing.]]"
To not step outside the boundaries of camp 2), I will argue on their terms:
I'll entertain the notion that the science of global warming, taken in balance as it currently stands, may be inconclusive. There may or may not be global warming, it may or may not be human-caused, and the consequences may or may not be severe. There is uncertainty. We are unsure what might happen. There might be disaster (defined by massive disruption to human endeavors), but there might not be.
BUT - isn't the "might" provided by much of the science enough? Aren't human endeavors important enough that we should modify our actions to minimize the risk of disaster (as defined above)? Just as the risk of terrorism caused us to modify our actions when boarding planes? Just as the risk of fires causes us to modify our building codes? Etc. Why wait until the science is 100% bulletproof, at which time the problem could potentially be much worse, to put in place preventative measures? Are the possible consequences of "doing something" even more than a shadow of the possible consequences of "doing nothing"? It seems to me that there's just as much at stake for camp 2) members as camp 1) members, so why do so many of you think we shouldn't do anything? I'm genuinely curious! I would like to hear a good explanation of that by someone who really thinks we should do nothing.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm in camp 1), but I know it's largely futile to entice most camp 2) members to switch camps! [grin]