Quote:
Originally Posted by Tichy
The 'laws' I refer to in the analogy with murder are regulations undertaken to reduce harmful emissions. The strawman I'm talking about rises up in your latest post. It's the assumption you think your opponents hold, namely that we can somehow control the climate from the top-down. Thus you argue, impertinently: "We can't completely control it, therefore we shouldn't try."
|
Where do I say anything like that? Indeed I believe I actually say the opposite, though my concern is not with what happens to a handful of species, since if your concern is generally for species you really have alot more work cut out for you than just worrying about ones negatively affected by warmer temperatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tichy
Nobody's saying that we can control the climate. But we can control *our* behavior in order to put less stress on it. The fact that you seem to be in favor of at least some regulations like this make me unsure what you're after now, except for annoyance with Al Gore.
|
Err...
I read these statements pretty clearly as people saying they want us to make the temperature go down. Not just stop going up. The contention is that our inputs to the climate may or may not have near the impact on this temperature change some people think it does. We are likely currently (and for the last 2 years now if not longer) in a cool down. What have we changed to contribute to this cool down? Nothing to do with CO2 obviously.
I am in favor of reducing the US demand on foreign sources of energy, I am in favor of reducing pollution generally (though CO2 is not technically a pollutant, it often accompanies other pollutants), and I am in favor of more personal responsibility for ones energy and material use.
None of that has anything to do with GW though as far as I am concerned, and the costs of preventing GW are greater than the costs of adapting or mitigating.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=164002