Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous 'what if' that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about. Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to be causing and can do something about that is imminent.
I guess you could use this argument in other ways... I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. Eating healthily seems draconian to me. Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling on me? Since I there is no consensus on what is healthy and because there are other unrealistic threats that I can't do much to avoid I should eat crap just in case it turns out there is no need to eat healthy food. BTW, there is a lot of disagreement about what is healthy and the today's research constantly overturns previously held beliefs. Now does all of this mean that I think that global warming prevention/reversal measures should be significantly detrimental to human society, No. I might disagree with some or all of the proposed measures. Being into alternative science I believe there are better ways that need to be explored. But you aren't arguing how to go about protecting the environment. You are arguing against protecting the earth. And your arguments are screaming intellectual dishonesty. John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > John and Randy, > > It did seem that my point was missed altogether. > > OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you. > > > Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will > happen, we don't have enough data > AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data. > > Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. > Global Warming (notice I said "Global Warming" not "Anthropic Global > Warming".) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it. > > Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against. > Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't > even know if it is indeed happening. > > > > So, a lot of "may", "if" and "possibility". Why should we implement > draconian measures to correct these "may", "if" and "possibility"? > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something. > > The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely. > And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to > advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture > outside of the solar system. > > That is something I very much would like to further. > > But surely you can see the difference between something that there is > evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something > that we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection > against (by any normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK). > > > John > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> John, >> >> This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise. >> >> OK, let me throw that premise back at you. >> >> What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun >> going supernova? >> What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it >> going supernova? >> >> >> After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova >> than there is of AGW. >> >> I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to >> spell it out for you. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global >> Warming .... >> >> What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do >> anything about it? >> What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about >> it? >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Randy, >>> >>> It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a "problem", >>> we must first make "sure" there is a problem. Taking steps to correct a >>> non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would >>> cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures >>> to correct a "possibility". This is pure speculation and wholly >>> irresponsible. Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's >>> throats. >>> >>> I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead >>> oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas. >>> That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into >>> it. However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by >>> some global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them >>> viable and financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a >>> choice, people will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, >>> overreaching, communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling >>> you what to do to promote their "Environmental Worshipping" agenda. >>> >>> That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative >>> or not, it's just common sense. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Randy wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about >>> Global Warming .... >>> >>> Jojo: >>> >>> I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given some >>> evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If there >>> is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to >>> me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no >>> doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless. >>> It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives >>> feel differently. It is a puzzle to me. >>> >>> Ransom >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> >>> *To:* Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM >>> *Subject:* [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global >>> Warming .... >>> >>> Here's some new data that is "worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global >>> Warming .... >>> >>> Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong. >>> >>> This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion >>> that Global Warming must be accelerating....??? >>> >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ >>> >>> >>> Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link "definitely" shows that Global >>> warming is occuring that is "correlated" to the amount of C02 that man >>> pumps out into the atmosphere.... ???? >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/ >>> >>> >>> But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where >>> NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of them; >>> there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody >>> questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed? >>> >>> >>> Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding >>> AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with >>> impunity... right? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) >>> propaganda from this forum. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12 >>> >>> >> >
