your thoughts on this so called global warming propaganda

[Collin Li]

Here's the reality - the Earth isn't going to become uninhabitable for a while. We still have time. I'm not saying we still have time to reverse the changes (we might, we might not), but we still have time on Earth. Money during that time is worth something.

It's like how you asked me: would you accept a million dollars to be killed? No, not if I was to be killed at the instant I got my money, coz the benefits of that money would be nil. But if we make the death at a later date, then the transaction may actually have some weight. I know I'm going to die (the Earth will die too), so I might accept a deal to be killed in 30 years time, depending on the money involved.

[TrueLight]

ouuu yeah agree with coblin above, we might or we might not reverse the changes humans have done, if we reverse the changes who really knows what will happen

[Mao]

that takes it back to my ideals against yours:

I want a future for my kids, and my kids' kids, and their kids, in fact, I extend this to the entire humanity.
our existence far outweighs any petty financial greeds. if I were to give up the unecessary pleasures to ensure survival of my future generation(s), I would.

which is why this issue should not be trivialised and dismissed. It should be one of our utmost priority to prevent the environment from deteriorating, there is nothing more valuable than it.
unless, of course, wine'n'dine is such a big part of your life that you can ignore all other things. you still have the right to continuing doing that, but I will also take on the freedom to criticize and judge the way you construct your life. In the very least, no matter who you are, I will never look up to you.

[okay, a bit too emotional, I blame the ethanol]

[TrueLight]

were u talking to me? oo

[Mao]

were u talking to me? oo

no, i was talking about people in general.

[droodles]

use water-saving shower heads

[TrueLight]

oh ok lol well i also want a future for my kids as well and the issue should'nt be triviliased or dismissed but people should be allowed to have different opinions. but yeah other than that i agree with you. but yeah ppl can't say the climate is going to change badly and thus the environment will die and thats the end of the world because no one knows 100% what result the rising CO2 and more intense global warming is going to have.



lol... what the hell random

[Mao]

oh ok lol well i also want a future for my kids as well and the issue should'nt be triviliased or dismissed but people should be allowed to have different opinions. but yeah other than that i agree with you. but yeah ppl can't say the climate is going to change badly and thus the environment will die and thats the end of the world because no one knows 100% what result the rising CO2 and more intense global warming is going to have.



lol... what the hell random

that's saying A is not B because we are unsure about B, which is not necessarily true.

even though that does not prove my stance, it does reveal insights. I am yet to see a proof that demonstrates the causation of CO2 to global warming, but that does not mean there is none. The issue should not be dismissed, simply because we cannot afford the risk [of losing].

unless, of course, you think the risk is affordable in return for large sums of money.

the arguments I am seeing, however, is that because it is inconclusive at this moment that global warming is caused by human activities, we should carry on as normal.
its like a couple kids play-fighting, and one of them gets hurt. "but I didn't do it!" he says, even though the other is bleeding and crying. do you at this point pick up the stick again and start running around again?

it's all fun until someone gets hurt.

[TrueLight]

yeah i know what ur trying to say that we need take action cause the consequences are gonna be bad which it probably will be. but i was saying ppl can't go like everything is a fact and the world is gonna be doomed, because ppl can't be sure... but i agree that 'the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction' lol that quote we get from rudd all the time haha... o and that Co2, global warming stuff it was meant to be seperate... but ur right well i think by my climate teacher lol theres no causation between Co2 and global warming but he said global warming is definetly a fact as in the temperature of the earth is going up... i think there are records from 1860

[hard]

oh ok lol well i also want a future for my kids as well and the issue should'nt be triviliased or dismissed but people should be allowed to have different opinions. but yeah other than that i agree with you. but yeah ppl can't say the climate is going to change badly and thus the environment will die and thats the end of the world because no one knows 100% what result the rising CO2 and more intense global warming is going to have.



lol... what the hell random

that's saying A is not B because we are unsure about B, which is not necessarily true.

even though that does not prove my stance, it does reveal insights. I am yet to see a proof that demonstrates the causation of CO2 to global warming, but that does not mean there is none. The issue should not be dismissed, simply because we cannot afford the risk [of losing].

unless, of course, you think the risk is affordable in return for large sums of money.

the arguments I am seeing, however, is that because it is inconclusive at this moment that global warming is caused by human activities, we should carry on as normal.
its like a couple kids play-fighting, and one of them gets hurt. "but I didn't do it!" he says, even though the other is bleeding and crying. do you at this point pick up the stick again and start running around again?

it's all fun until someone gets hurt.

You are losing the whole point; justification and reasoning is a result for means of action. There is no reasoning in taking irrational actions to stop global warming through adding unnecessary tax on the already crumbling budget, there is no need to add an extra 4000 or so dollars to the average car just because it's "environmentally friendly" when really it takes twice as long to get from A to B and twice as much oil to manufacture the parts and run the car, there is no need to bring about schemes such as the current carbon offset scheme which has just resulted in thousands of jobs cut loose and companies being made shut down. What happens to the families that loose their job for a cause that is equivocal, fallacious AND groundless? Why should we feel the full grunt for something that has no short term benefit and no guarantee for a long term benefit. Maybe the govt should call the quite gambling hot line so they could stop gambling with our lively hood and lifestyle. If the govt has so much money wasting in all these new plants ( not organic ones, company type), new environmentally friendly product partnerships and new buildings when it should fund research in order to PROVE  to society that it's actions regarding "lets cut CO2 to protect the world from dying" as valid. We are not asking for a future that has no promise, we are asking for a future that can be seen or in futuro.
Btw our kids kids kids kids kids kids and so on will still live to see the light of day even if everyone on earth decided to run a new factory, own 3 cars that run everyday and leave all their electricity on for their entire life because this could be just another phase the this planet goes through. As Einstein once said  "god doesn't play dice" and so shouldn't we, especially with our lives.

[TrueLight]

so you think climate change is natural variability? if you do its fair enough

[Collin Li]

Fear is the authoritarian's tool.

But even if we are doomed, and we have no idea what is causing it, what the hell are we supposed to do Mao?

[brendan]

"The cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction" is not necessarily true.

It depends on what kind of action the government takes. Regarding the kind of action that the Rudd Government is planning to take, I am not convinced that "The cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction".

Secondly, it's not just about "money". Money is nothing but bits of plastic. What matters is resources. Resources that can be used to save lives and/or improve lives. Yes money can be used to save lives, what a surprise!

[Mao]

to add to the suspense:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/shortterm-view-reveals-the-error-of-warmearth-deniers-20080724-3kls.html

shame that they don't actually have the graph online.

I don't have time right now for rebuttals. soon though

[dejan91]

*bump*

I found this site, extensive resource list: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050