DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Storms today - AL Gore - a consequence of man-made global warming

**Oriesssedleli419** · 01-03-2011, 12:20 AM

MattInFla
It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory.

It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory). Yeah, and Gore is too fucking stupid to have figure out that they are not supposed to talk about "global warming" anymore. It is not "climate change". They figured that little rhetorical catch-all when they realized they looked as fucking stupid as...well, as Al Gore...whenever they had their big "global warming" conferences and the globe kept insisting on having unusually cold or snowy weather on them.

But "climate change" can refer to anything. The other nice thing about it is it accurately describes the whole of global climate history. The planet's climate has always been, and will always be in the midst of change.

The questions for serious people are:

1. How much, if any significant impact are we having on it
2. What, if anything can we do to mitigate any contribution our activities are making towards it
3. What are the costs to society of doing those things which can, if possible, mitigate our contributions
4. What are the costs to society of adapting to, rather than trying to change climate change
5. Are the costs to simply adapt to the change greater or less than the costs of trying to stop it.

The answer to the first two questions is basically, we don't really know yet. The fact that there has yet to be produced any climate model which accurately FORECASTS chages (rather than adapting models which were wrong to accurately predict what happened with 20/20 hindsight) demonstrates that we don't really know.

As for the last three questions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the known costs of the measures proposed to try and influence climate change (which we do not have any evidence will actually work) far exceeds the costs of merely adapting to the changes.

Once you dismiss the hysterical fools who insist that we are "killing", "destroying", or making the planet "unsuitable for human life" for the fools they are, and ask those straightforward questions, the implications for public policy are clear.

01-03-2011, 12:20 AM	#7
Oriesssedleli419 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 484 Senior Member	MattInFla It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory. It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory). Yeah, and Gore is too fucking stupid to have figure out that they are not supposed to talk about "global warming" anymore. It is not "climate change". They figured that little rhetorical catch-all when they realized they looked as fucking stupid as...well, as Al Gore...whenever they had their big "global warming" conferences and the globe kept insisting on having unusually cold or snowy weather on them. But "climate change" can refer to anything. The other nice thing about it is it accurately describes the whole of global climate history. The planet's climate has always been, and will always be in the midst of change. The questions for serious people are: 1. How much, if any significant impact are we having on it 2. What, if anything can we do to mitigate any contribution our activities are making towards it 3. What are the costs to society of doing those things which can, if possible, mitigate our contributions 4. What are the costs to society of adapting to, rather than trying to change climate change 5. Are the costs to simply adapt to the change greater or less than the costs of trying to stop it. The answer to the first two questions is basically, we don't really know yet. The fact that there has yet to be produced any climate model which accurately FORECASTS chages (rather than adapting models which were wrong to accurately predict what happened with 20/20 hindsight) demonstrates that we don't really know. As for the last three questions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the known costs of the measures proposed to try and influence climate change (which we do not have any evidence will actually work) far exceeds the costs of merely adapting to the changes. Once you dismiss the hysterical fools who insist that we are "killing", "destroying", or making the planet "unsuitable for human life" for the fools they are, and ask those straightforward questions, the implications for public policy are clear.
	Quote