I know that I am bound to accept global warming for many reasons: because I am misanthropic–and regard humans as a blind, piggy species, and I collect data that support my belief; because I am cheap and anti-materialistic and am judgmental of rich people who use a lot of oil; because I’m outdoorsy and my social pod are treehuggers…
But let’s concede for a moment that the nay-sayers might be right. Let’s say it’s 50-50 (rather than 99-1, where Chris Matthews puts it).
My father’s a scientist, and when I was a kid, my parents were friends of the Pevsners. Their father is a physicist. He was driving us kids somewhere one day and we were talking about a shooting in the subway in New York. I remember saying, Oh I wouldn’t be afraid to go down in the subway, it’s one in a thousand that you’d get shot. And Dr. Pevsner said, If the odds that you would be shot are one in a thousand, no one would go down into the subway, for good reason. Looking back on it, I understand that he was right. And if the odds were 50-50 that you would be shot in the subway– no one would ever set foot there.
If the odds are even 50-50 that we’re destroying the planet earth, we should act and act fast.
” judgmental of rich people”
Like you aren’t rich? So, you’ve been living in a tent by the freeway?
And BTW, Weiss, thatwide-eyed ingenuousness you sling around is getting really, really thin. It’s such a blatant defense.
You should do yourself a favor and resolve to write nothing further about your personal life, marriage, family. You undermine yourself continuously by doing it, and one could even suspect intentionally.
No, Mooser. Phil is being honest; he’s throwing out himself, warts and all, knowing full well his credibility will be impeached by those who would never do anything of the sort. You are more dishonest than Witty; and that’s a high standard of lowness.
Phil is a truth-seeker. You are rabidly opinionated, as is Witty. I suggest you two
operate as each other’s hand-puppets to entertain us in a most mendacious manner–oh, never mind, you both already do this. Kudos to you. Your next in line for the Noble peace prize.
An important post.
Its possible.
The odds are that the glaciars will melt prematurely are 99.995-1. The odds that there will not be a subsequent glaciation meaning that fresh water will be scarce for hundreds of thousands of years (rainwater and springs alone doesn’t provide for fresh water needs) is around 50-50. The odds that the earth will spin out into a Venus-like carbon based atmosphere are 1-99.
The odds that the seas will rise by 3 ft are probably 90-10. The odds that the seas will fall in 20,000 years if the regular glacial cycles return is 90-10. The odds that the seas will fall in 20,000 if the regular glacial cycles don’t return is 0.
In the New York Times yesterday was a report of a Bolivian city (I don’t know the population) that everyone had to leave because the glaciar that feeds its water supply is no longer.
The forced removal from global warming will GREATLY EXCEED the “ethnic cleansing” of Israel/Palestine.
Yes, there was a spurt of global warming in 1998. Ever since, despite no evidence, the Al Gore’s of this world, have told us this is a trend. That’s what why the hacking into Green emails is so important. Another reason, of course, is that the Green agenda
depends on taxpayer subsidies all the way; that is, none of their programs are cost-effective in a business sense. Put those two things together, and what do you have?
Why, Obamaland!
Citizen,
Don’t go ostrich.
We’re in Joseph in Egypt times, with multiple tipping points suggesting that the unconscious norm of the modern world will be short-lived if not redefined.
Some of the efforts that will make a fundamental social change are more self-awareness and definition of how individuals live. Some are innovations in enterprise. Some of the efforts are external to us, and define the rules, laws.
The reality is that global warming is real, is occurring in cyclically unprecedented scale, can be addressed in a just manner if done so intentionally rather than by only when the consequences hit hard.
Would it be wise to accept a Jewish elite if anti-Semites are only .001% correct in their claims about Jews?
Todd, the % is suspect; please look to world history, especially in socio-economic terms & political use of same; also, apply the same standard to any other group in history; what do you see?
Citizen, I guess you mean that small ruling cliques have been the rule rather than the exception. That’s true if you are mainly looking at things from a political of sociological standpoint. Whatever the truth is, I have no desire to be ruled by a hostile ethnic and cultural minority group.
Btw, is there a such thing as anti-Gentilism, passive-aggressive or otherwise?
I don’t know how to get around the politics of it, because democratic governments –the kind accountable to their citizenry–probably can’t take really firm carbon reducing measures without being tossed from office–the short term economic disruptions would be too stark. And the big growth dictatorships–China especially– are even more reluctant. One might favor something like George Kennan’s elitist council of elders or whatever he called it, (which could never be brought into being in practice) but the bottom line may be that democratic governments can’t deal with a problem of this nature. Too bad.
There are MANY substantial things that can be done, mostly at the level of innovative enterprise, with perhaps some help from some regulation.
1. Mandatory energy disclosure of every residence rented or sold (paid by seller/landlord)
2. Significant increase in all fuel taxes
3. Residential application of energy service companies (in which a third party owns a the energy improvements and receives an income from energy savings and reimbursement at subsequent sale)
4. Transportation service companies (rather than ownership of vehicles) responsible to get persons from here to there
5. Universal access to small private vehicles for local use (electric preferably), access to fleets for residual needs
6. Frequent mass transit routes (in my area now only every other hour, every 10 minutes would change individuals’ use patterns)
7. Commuter services to employers
8. Perfection of external building envelope technologies combined with passive solar
9. Regional settlement design (zoning) emphasizing verticle building while retaining local agricultural land rather than sprawl.
10. Disclosure of LOCUS of manufacture, emphasizing buy close to home.
None of your ten suggestions are cost-effective; all depend on taxing working citizens to make up the difference (beyond taxing the individual taxpayer/consumer). There’s a reason why average US citizens don’t have windmills on their land, or solar panels on their homes, or why they don’t buy Larry David’s car of choice–and it’s not because they are all knuckle-dragger by choice and disposition. Hitler was a fresh veggie
guy. And so it seems, are you. How much annual income do you need, Dick Witty, to float in your walled burb environment? You know nothing about the life or an average American; as you know know nothing about the life of an average Palestinian.
I can save you 40% of the money that you currently spend on transportation.
You can call that uneconomic if you like.