Global Warming Denial in a Nutshell

[Retrolives]

Found this on LewRockwell.com and loved the clarity of logic it contained.
LewRockwell.com Blog: Global Warming Denial in a Nushell

1. I am not convinced that there is man-made global warming. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it has not been proven to my satisfaction. In part, my skepticism is based on the corruption of science brought about by its politicization. Also, the obvious political agenda behind global warming is an additional ground for skepticism.

2. Even if it is true, I believe its extent and its ill effects have been exaggerated and its possible benefits ignored.

3. Even if it is true, it is a mistake to put the government in charge of saving the planet because, with the exception of killing people and seizing and destroying property, government isn't good at anything. Why rely on this incompetent, corrupt institution to save the planet? It can't even plow your street properly.

4. Even if it is true, I favor the government doing nothing about it since everyone on the planet is fully capable of responding to the crisis by changing their behavior in ways that quickly and dramatically reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The market mechanism will be available to provide them with all the goods and services they need in this venture.

5. Even if it is true, I oppose giving government remedial power since this is a recipe for a totalitarian state. That is, since everything we do, including breathing, worsens global warming, then, logically, this would give the government absolute, ruthless, save the planet-type power over everything we do, every single moment of the day, forever!

That's why I'm a global warming denier, and damn proud about it.

[McGyver]

Bonjouer,

Great clarity of logic indeed. Start from an assumption i.e. that greenhouse effect global warming etc is true and anyone who denies this is either:
a. stupid
b.seeking to be controversial
c.in pay of oil interests
d. some other negative type

Then of course you can build a logical argument to reinforce your position. Logic in no way means your argument is overall correct. This was the whole point of debates in school i.e. the teacher gave you a side of the argument and no matter which side it is you should have an equal chance of winning by using reasoned, logical argument.

How about these for logical points:
1. Global warming theory does not explain historic variations in temperature i.e.the medieval warming period etc, roman times (hotter than the Dark ages)
2. CO2 is only c.5% of greenhouse emissions. It makes little sense to target that as it is vital for heat and is such a small part of the overall problem etc. Water vapour represents the vast bulk of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but is never even queried. Should irrigation in the desert for cultivation and golf courses not be examined?
3. If science can not even tell us when it will rain this week to any level of accuracy (and as mentioned water represents >50% of greenhouse gases), we are expected to believe that scientists can quantify the heating effects of c.5% on the global temperature?

Also, when pro-climate change people use terms such as "denier" e.g. like holocaust denier it sort of shades them in a negative light. Is that really a reasoned,logical approach?

Go Sammy Wilson!!!

[goosebump]

No one has credibly claimed that Global Warming/Climate Change is an undeniable fact.

We have claimed that the evidence is of such volume, and the potential outcomes so devastating, that precautionary measures are required.

To use a very simple analogy:

You can't prove that gravity exists, but we still built a wall around the Cliffs of Moher.

[cHeal]

"Green Fascism"? Christ grow up FFS.

Anyways, I happen to believe in global warming but don't really care about it or its consequences. I don't care that you don't believe (I don't use the word "deny") that is going to have an impact and neither do I feel any inclination to argue for it, believe what you want, but don't believe it isn't happening because:

a; You can't see it.
b; Oh big bad government.
c; You hate hippies.

kthxbye

[5intheface]

Found this on LewRockwell.com and loved the clarity of logic it contained.
LewRockwell.com Blog: Global Warming Denial in a Nushell

1. I am not convinced that there is man-made global warming. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it has not been proven to my satisfaction. In part, my skepticism is based on the corruption of science brought about by its politicization. Also, the obvious political agenda behind global warming is an additional ground for skepticism.

2. Even if it is true, I believe its extent and its ill effects have been exaggerated and its possible benefits ignored.

3. Even if it is true, it is a mistake to put the government in charge of saving the planet because, with the exception of killing people and seizing and destroying property, government isn't good at anything. Why rely on this incompetent, corrupt institution to save the planet? It can't even plow your street properly.

4. Even if it is true, I favor the government doing nothing about it since everyone on the planet is fully capable of responding to the crisis by changing their behavior in ways that quickly and dramatically reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The market mechanism will be available to provide them with all the goods and services they need in this venture.

5. Even if it is true, I oppose giving government remedial power since this is a recipe for a totalitarian state. That is, since everything we do, including breathing, worsens global warming, then, logically, this would give the government absolute, ruthless, save the planet-type power over everything we do, every single moment of the day, forever!

That's why I'm a global warming denier, and damn proud about it.

Sounds reasonable but where are you with Sammy Wilson who denies global warming and is part of the Government?

[Fear Dorcha]

You can't prove that gravity exists

there is also nothing shady about the IL&P loan/deposit to Anglo but the sky is going to fall in because climate changes continuously

[Hazlitt]

Hi guys,

Great thread topic retrolives.

I am not a global warming expert, but I do know that we haven't been keeping weather records for very long in relation to how long our planet has been in existence. There is absolutely no way that I know of for scientists to tell if any change in temperature is not just a "blip" on the historical chart of global temperatures or not. Therefore I am a "non-believer" and think that the potential pricetag for the EU of approx €1,000,000,000,000 on combatting global warming is an absolute outrage! {{ Link here!! }}

[cHeal]

Right what if Global warming is a scam? Worst case senario you become fuel independent, relying on green energy and save money on your electricity bills by cutting back. Is that really such an awful outcome?

[Trampas]

Also, when pro-climate change people use terms such as "denier" e.g. like holocaust denier it sort of shades them in a negative light. Is that really a reasoned,logical approach?

Yes it is. In fact it is absolutely brillant and getting more and more difficult to counter.

[ibis]

Reprise:

1. I am not convinced that there is man-made global warming. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying it has not been proven to my satisfaction. Admittedly, I know nothing about the science as such, and was entirely unaware that there was an issue before it was politicised, so I'm ignoring the long build-up of evidence that led to the politicisation - but, hey, why not? Aside from anything else, my denial is now a political badge of allegiance.

2. Even if it is true, I believe its extent and its ill effects have been exaggerated and its possible benefits ignored. Sure, I've no idea what those benefits might be, but there must be some, right? Stands to reason. Also, OK, I haven't bothered checking what ill effects are actually scientifically predicted, but I'm sure Hollywood wouldn't have made "Day After Tomorrow" without checking the facts with a scientist, right? And that film was just so unlikely!

3. Even if it is true, it is a mistake to put the government in charge of saving the planet because, with the exception of killing people and seizing and destroying property, government isn't good at anything. Why rely on this incompetent, corrupt institution to save the planet? It can't even plow your street properly. I mean, sure it can organise public utilities like streetlighting and sewerage and other stuff like that - plus welfare payments, tax, policing, libraries, schools, roads, railways, public health measures, and so on, but I'm well enough off to prefer purely private services in any case rather than rub shoulders with the plebs.

4. Even if it is true, I favor the government doing nothing about it since everyone on the planet is fully capable of responding to the crisis by changing their behavior in ways that quickly and dramatically reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. The market mechanism will be available to provide them with all the goods and services they need in this venture. Now, fair enough, I won't be doing anything about it myself because I don't believe in it, and in any case it hardly makes any difference if I continue to drive my hummer of choice, right? I mean, it's not me polluting the planet - my contribution is insignificant - but I'm sure the lentil-eaters will make up for it.

5. Even if it is true, I oppose giving government remedial power since this is a recipe for a totalitarian state. That is, since everything we do, including breathing, worsens global warming, then, logically, this would give the government absolute, ruthless, save the planet-type power over everything we do, every single moment of the day, forever! Heaven forfend the government should organise stuff - the Dark Ages were great!