|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response to YouTube Member
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Action | ||
| GCC | Yes | No |
| False | Cost $ Global Economic Depression |
 |
| True | |
Cost $
Catastrophes: Economic Political Social Environment Health |
Response 1
Joe says we have two options for Global Climate Change (GCC), it’s either true or it’s false. Notice first that Joe is a surface thinker. What seems to him like an ocean of knowledge and wisdom turns out to be an inch deep.
Joe gives GCC two options, True and False, as if they were on an equal basis. The assumption is that both are equally possible and we don’t know which is which. He’s urging us to extreme action on possibilities without examining the likelihood of either possibility. There’s a name for a person like that, Alarmist, also known as the Chicken Little Syndrome.
A reasonable person investigating the Global Warming claims soon finds out two things:
- GCC claims are just that, claims and allegations. They have no irrefutable proof.
- Scientific study and data point to the conclusion that no man-made global warming is occurring.
Let me explain further items 1 and 2. Global Warming activists claim that, scientifically speaking, global warming due to human activity could occur. But scientific fact show global warming due to human activity is not occurring. The theory is, it could occur. The facts are, it is not occurring.
“Oh yeah?” you say, “What about the melting polar caps?” I have these points to say about that
- We are living in a post-Ice Age era. The ice caps are going to melt sometime, but not due to human activity.
- The alarmist claim that the Arctic ice is melting deliberately ignores the fact that the Antarctic ice is growing.
- We don’t know what is the ideal climate; we only know about the one we’re living in now. Maybe the melting ice will be a great blessing to us; maybe it will provide a climate much more agreeable than the one we have, yielding more farmland and more fresh water. Maybe the earth will return to what it was like 65-million years ago. Even if that’s so, it’s not because of human activity.
What Joe is asking us to do is put scientific study and alarmist allegations on the same level, giving them the same respect and responding to them with the same intensity.
Response 2
Joe admittedly put the two extremist actions in the boxes True-NoAction and False-YesAction.
Is it reasonable to respond to the worst possible scenario? If we drive a car, we could be in an accident and killed; therefore we must never drive a car. If we cross a street, we could be hit by a car and killed; therefore we must never cross a street. If we live in our house we could be exposed to deadly radon. Therefore we must not live in our house. Does that sound silly to you? Yes? Then why doesn’t Joe’s exhortation to extreme action sound equally silly?
Response 3
My question to Joe is, how does he know the consequences? What are his credentials? Has he lived through such an event before? Or even studied it? Of course not, because there has been no such event in his lifetime. Joe simply listed dire things and then said if we don’t follow his suggestion, this is what we will suffer. That sounds a lot like chain letters I get in the mail every day. If I don’t send out ten copies of Jesus blessing me, I’m going to get athletes foot and die a painful, miserable death.
Joe has simply thrown out a list of bad things and said this will happen, without evidence, experience or knowledge.
Response 4
As I said before, Joe engages in surface thinking. He urges us to extreme action with little or no evidence, just allegations. Acting on his allegations, you may notice, will result in us voting for one political party and not the other. It’s a political ploy. If we humans are going to survive in a reasonable way and take control of our own future, we must be sure of what we do and act on facts. Fleeing in the direction that alarmist politicians point is like sheep fleeing to the slaughter house.
Further Remarks
Joe invited a response to his allegation (thinking there could not possible be any rebuttal), and so I did. The things we touched on may raise other questions to the reader. Therefore I'm going to add further remarks here about global warming.
Global Warming History
A few years ago a scientist theorized that if certain conditions are met, a greenhouse effect could occur. Liberal politicians jumped on that and began claiming that certain conditions are met and the greenhouse effect is in fact occurring right now. Therefore, let's review certain well-known facts.
Up By A Degree
From the year 1900 to 2000, earth warmed up about 0.6 Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit). However, most of that one degree increase occurred before 1950. Liberal politicians and activists are saying global warming is occurring. How?
Earth Has Two Poles
Liberals claim the Arctic ice is melting, including the Greenland glaciers. But they never talk about the Antarctic ice growing. Why not? Isn't the South Pole part of earth, too?
Earth cycles
Five hundred years ago we had a period of global warming. That is being studied by scientists using nature's history books, trees and polar ice. The climate then was warmer than it is now. The earth goes through cycles, and we haven't studied it long enough to know exactly what those cycles are. To say global warming is occurring now because of human activity does not explain how human activity created global warming five hundred years ago.
Scientific Disagreement
2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists (so far) have signed a petition saying that global warming hysteria is pseudoscientific baloney. They've been joined by an additional 5,017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists, and over 10,000 other scientists, attached to major universities and research organizations around the world.
I got that information at several places, but it was summed up nicely in one place, so I lifted it verbatum from http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html.
Change Is Inevitable.
This earth changes. Its continents change. Its climate changes. Get used to it. Deal with it. The liberal claim isn't so much that we are having climate changes (which they allege with no proof), but that it is man made. The problem with that is 1. We see no evidence of inappropriate or disastrous climate change and 2. We see no evidence that humans cause it.
Political Consequences
Why would it be so important for liberal politicians to have us believe humans are causing man-made global warming? If it is true, and this is so important, then why don't all politicians and scientists agree on it?
If liberal politicians and liberal activists can convince us that man-made global warming is happening, then what is the reasonable thing for us to do? That question is easy. If it is true, then we must elect liberal politicians to force us to control what we do and give them higher taxes that they may deal with this "emergency."