According to your video:"earth's temperature always rises first, followed by a rise in CO2..."Allow Greenman3610 on YouTube explain this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8Here's his video on the effect of small amounts of CO2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
Very nice. Maybe that’s right, maybe not. When you buy an insurance policy against future perils (car/house etc.) you don't want the premium to jeopardize your livelihood.The premium to fix AGW is far too high by any measure.
When a flood is statistically low, the insurance to cover one is low. If a flood is imminent, insurance sky-rockets.The price of fixing AGW is high, very high, I agree.The price to not fix it, is even higher. Many will pay with their lives. Should it be members of your family or mine? Or should we export it to families in regions that had little to do with it?I don't buy your economic argument. This is a human issue. I'm not an economist but there is a way to switch clean energy that can, in the long run, be cost-effective. There are so many projects that can be built to use clean energy, the money will flow. I see highways lined with wind turbines to be an engineering marvel not an eyesore.Providing clean energy doesn't hurt your freedom (in fact, it gives you the power to be more free by generating your own!). It may hurt your income through taxation and higher energy prices but you can profit by investing in the energy grid.
You've been watching or listening to Al Gore and Dave Suzuki and Greenman too long.One of my blog posts is from the Seasteading Institute. This group headed by Patri Friedman, grandson of notable libertarian Milton Friedman has the idea to build new countries in the oceans, floating on barges. If one day this happens and they form societies that "pollute" earth with excess CO2 emissions because they think they are freemen, will they be attacked and destroyed by the "CO2 Police"? You may think thats silly, but thats where we are headed. You will not convince me, nor I you, so there is little point in continuing this discussion. My faith in the ability of science to self-correct is still strong. Reality will be the judge, I just hope we don't damage this society more than it already is, and I believe in my friend Albert: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Einstein
Michael Shermer is the editor of Skeptic Magazine and a Libertarian. He publicly denied AGW. He also publicly changed his view.Penn Jillete is also a staunch Libertarian and co-host of the TV show 'Bullshit!'. He still denies AGW but has been softening his stance lately.When you continue to argue that current efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are 'too expensive' and hamper your freedom, then envision a world where we live on floating cities, you refute your own argument. Building a floating city would be extremely expensive and restrict freedom.It's disappointing to see that you were once a science teacher. Four years ago I became a certified teacher in Ontario with a specialty in science. However, you don't seem to know how science works. To suggest that climate science is a global scam is ridiculous and something I would expect from a person ignorant in science - not a teacher with political aspirations.I recommend reading Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's considered the best source for an introduction to skepticism and critical thinking. It might help you realize that your position on AGW is being supported by your own confirmation bias, not science.Finally, let me quote Michael Shermer his article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-political-brain) that defines confirmation bias and how it effects politics:"the confirmation bias: whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence."
I was prepared to just agree to disagree, but then you insulted me. I have never denied climate change, and while I was a teacher I actually believed some of the hype without thinking what would be entailed in a solution to avert the possible disastrous consequences of AGW. I have done the reverse of Shermer (although I’m not certain if his solution involves the bullshit going on in Copenhagen – I doubt it). If AGW is a problem, notice I said IF, I understand science very well and I know that EVERY THEORY is only as good as its most recent supporting data. Even the most “sacred” theories are tentative and AGW is as tentative as any (see my Einstein quote above). What you don’t seem to get is that I have the right to disagree even against what you say is overwhelming contrary evidence and I am still acting in a scientific manner and in good faith. There is nothing simple or clear cut about this issue and for me there are many unanswered questions. Imposing a deadline on negotiation or having hundreds of country reps discussing solutions at a conference is not making me feel confident. Excuse me if I don’t trust that Copenhagen has my best interests at heart, and I’m not prepared to sacrifice my life for some alleged noble cause to save the world. I would be shocked if Canadians/Americans are going to quietly allow their interests to be sacrificed for this issue either. I suspect our governments will mouth the right words, sign the “deal”, then come home and ignore it just like Kyoto. That would be fine with me, and to finish what I was saying; IF AGW is problem we will react to it to the extent possible. As for Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, good book, I read it in ’96 and it has a nice spot in my library.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.