EZ writes:
(in reply to TC's "You don't think there isn't bias on both sides?") No, I don't think so.
With that statement, you show ignorance. Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. It's ok to be biased. It is the fuel for debate. It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories.
The bias againstbelief in GW is created by business interests that don't want to see their profit margins shrink. There is no direct profit motive or material gain to be had for publicly funded scientists for pointing out that our current activities are changing the planet for the worse.
Bad conclusion. Profit is not the only motive for bias. Good science needs checks and balances. Another motive (both sides of GW debate)is personal ego-driven scientific recognition. And, don't forget that there are evil business rivals to big oil, and they have incentive for bringing down their rivals enough to sell their own goods (or in the case of some folks, their books and movies). There seems to be plenty of grant money going to GW folks. I guess this is not your definition of "profit".
So you admit that China is currently prospering at the environment's expense? Kind of like we have for the last 70 years?
Yes. But that has nothing to do with my point. Besides, I love preservation (not conservation) of large-scale natural man-minimized environments.
When is it going to become incumbent on us to lead by example? You would have us continue as usual because others are doing the same?
I would love to keep Brazilians from chopping all the Amazon trees down, but "leading by example" by not chopping my backyard's trees down will not stop them. The same is true with energy consumption, IMO.
This is precisely the mind-set that leads to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. In case you are not familiar with it, it derives from medeival England where the townsfolk all grazed their animals on shared lands, or 'commons'.
Don't forget the Anasazi Indians at Mesa Verde!
You seem to conclude that I am in favor of that. Erroneous and incorrect conclusion. Besides, killing-off species and destroying habitats was still an issue before GW became popular. Ultimately, this pits the poor (who want the resources) vs the rich, the haves vs have-nots. I am in favor of population control as an approach, but darned if I know how to ethically make that happen world-wide.
Your argument is a typically conservative one and merely a shallow justification for selfish behavior and disregard for environmental stewardship and the quality of life that future generations will inherit.
Cart before horse again, EZ. Before you accuse me and conservatives of selfishness on this issue, you need to have a convincing case that humans are the cause. You don't. Rather than belly-ache, have all the biased scientists from both sides hash it out.
Let me say this. If you want to see something 'economy-crippling' just watch us stay the present course, because the American economy won't just be crippled by the consequences of global warming, it will eventually collapse to a mere shadow of its former self.
American economy is collapsing, but it will have nothing to do with GW. The invasion from the south, the socialistic benefits, the debt, the outsourcing of work, the legal quagmire for business, and some other things are enough to bring us down. The illegal alien issue is already a time-bomb waiting to cripple us with benefit costs once they become citizens.
As a proponent of evolution, you have a pathetically poor perspective on the consequences of human influences on its processes.
Look, I am being a bit sarcastic, but chalk that up to my practical sense that there is nothing we really have control over.
OK, EZ, since you need to be told sarcasm... warning! sarcasm follows: By causing mass-extinction, we are opening the door of opportunity for species variation to express itself in different ways. This has been a hypothesis from evolutionary scientists.
See any desirable species evolving in human-modified ecosystems?
Snap out of it!! You are starting to make arguments like a Creationist!
'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage
™ Version 4.2
