4

22 comments

[–] smallpond [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

If it's a natural cycle, it's one that has cleverly disguised itself as something obvious that scientists were pretty certain about over thirty years ago, and essentially nothing has changed since then.

You're kind of asking the wrong question anyway. Given the probable severity and permanence of global warming, how can you be sure it is a natural cycle? Wouldn't a sane species just fix the damn problem up to be safe, rather than continue to push towards what could be oblivion, waiting for the moment when we're 100% sure that there's a massive disaster and we've caused it.

At what point in the future will you judge yourself for being stupid enough to believe the propaganda? I suppose many are not honorable enough to ever admit it - or lack the mental faculties to competently make that judgement.

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

what is it then, global warming or global cooling? What does your science actually think will happen? Ice age or lava age? You kind of keep changing that every few years so you can bring on more taxes

[–] smallpond [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

It's anthropogenic global warming, and the vast majority of the world's scientists have been saying that consistently for over 30 years. The question is as irrelevant as "What is it then, ellipsoidal earth or flat earth?"

You've mentioned your fear of world government before, and I guess that's tied into your tax comment. If a strongly held belief places you at odds with what the vast majority of the world's scientists have been saying consistently for over 30 years despite huge pressure from the largest corporations on earth looking to protect their profits, perhaps it's a hint that your ideology has holes in it?

Will you ignore all other tragedies of the commons as well? At present global warming is just one exacerbating factor in the severe depletion of the earth's resources under the weight of nearly 8 billion humans. How do you plan to deal with such tragedies of the commons without taxing or unified regulation? Do we actively exterminate people, or just avoid taxing them until almost everyone and everything is dead?

From what I've read in the past, you appear to be a decent human being in other ways. I guess you're lashing out a little above, but I can only pity your state of severe corporate brainwashing.

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Sorry, I haven't been sleeping well and used harsh language in my post while severely lacking sleep. I'll try to clarify.

My main philosophy is "how do we know that the temperature rise and ice loss would not currently be happening in a very similar manner if humans did not exist at all?" The earth has gone through what, 7 mass extinction events already, how do we know that it isn't just on a cycle towards number 8, irregardless of any human intervention?

That is more of my thinking. I also think a lot of carbon taxes are ridiculous and do nothing to solve the problem. The Paris Accord was a joke....ok China and India, the worst polluters, can keep expanding for at least 10 more years while all western nations wind down and pay a lot of money to......what? Export their industry to China and India who are not bound by the agreement?

Do gas taxes really make most people drive less? Even The Washington Post argues that ya, raising gas tax won't change people's habits.

Also, why did Al Gore preach global sea level rising from melting ice caps and then use the profits from his book to buy a several million dollar beach house? Idiots that are contradictory make people skeptical