Prior to the invasion of Iraq, conservatives argued that even though we couldn't be sure Saddam had weapons, the fact that it might be true was enough to mandate action. In other words, we couldn't wait for a smoking gun.
Now, conservatives on this board seem to be arguing that we should do nothing about global warming because, though we know the consequences could be catastrophic, we can't be absolutely sure it's caused by humans (only 90%). In other words, they say we have to wait for a smoking gun.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Note: I understand that essentially all conservative politicians accept the danger of GW. I suppose my question is then addressed to the select extremists on this board.
2007-04-05
07:38:52
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Steve
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Although I am not an extremist, I just had to write to tell you that you have a very valid point. I've not thought of it quite that way.
If we don't take care of everything now, there will be nothing left for the children who come after us. A sad legacy to leave...we have become a generation who spent, used, and had the mentality of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die"...Ignorance is not a justification. We should all do "our part".
2007-04-05 07:45:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Toots 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
You analogy shows either your lack of understanding or you attempt to mis-inform.
No one, not even Al Gore is claiming that global warming is 90% caused by humans. You are so far off on this issue it is hard to know where to begin. It is just easier to use a blanket statement and declare that nothing in your statement is true or worthy of comment.
Catastrophic consequences? Look, even energy hogs like Al Gore can be let off the hook by buying 'CARBON CREDITS". Get real. These people are pulling your leg. If there really was a catastrophic consequence for emitting carbon dioxide what the heck will a carbon credit do about it? Big Al is still burning aviation fuel by the ton. Do you think he would be doing that if he really believed any of this? Would you do it?
.
2007-04-05 07:57:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Wow, thanks for weaponizing an environmental issue with words like "smoking gun" and "mushroom cloud". That's some drastic, inflammatory, and completely unrelated imagery.
Yep, the world is changing. It does that. It's supposed to. Just because we just noticed doesn't make it a problem, doesn't mean we caused it, and doesn't mean we could stop it if we tried. Are we arrogant enough to think we make the weather? I suppose we are. Fine, but start small. Rather than stop the temperature of the entire planet from slightly increasing every decade, try something more manageable. Go down to your local beach, and stop the tide. It's eroding the coast, you know.
Does anybody else remember in the 80's when they told us Acid Rain was going to kill every living thing on the planet?
2007-04-05 07:50:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Beardog 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
You analogy shows both your lack of comprehend-how or you attempt to mis-tell. no man or woman, no longer even Al Gore is claiming that global warming is ninety% brought about by technique of human beings. you're to date off in this difficulty it really is obscure the starting factor. it really is merely more convenient to apply a blanket fact and declare that no longer some thing on your fact is authentic or worth of remark. Catastrophic consequences? seem, even capacity hogs like Al Gore would properly be enable off the hook by technique of shopping for 'CARBON credit". Get authentic. those all and sundry is pulling your leg. If there extremely turned right into a catastrophic effect for emitting carbon dioxide what the heck will a carbon credit do about it? huge Al remains burning aviation gasoline by technique of the ton. Do you imagine he should be doing that if he extremely believed any of this? ought to you do it? .
2016-12-03 08:26:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Let me help address your ignorance and confusion.
"we know the consequences could be catastrophic"
COULD BE.. is uncertainty. Meaning your statement also implies "we know the consequences could not be catastrophic"
"we can't be absolutely sure it's caused by humans (only 90%)"
No, actually we can be sure if it's caused by humans. All we have to do is look at when this LATEST warming cycle started and see if humanity was industrialized at the time ( we weren't ) .
But thanks for playing.
2007-04-05 07:50:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am think if there is a mushroom cloud we have other things to worry about.
2007-04-05 07:42:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by werewolf_hunter20 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
The MARTIAN ICE CAPS are melting.
How you going to blame MAN for that ?
Ever hear of a thing called the SUN?
2007-04-05 07:47:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
it isn't a "smoking gun" that many of us are waiting for -- it is quantifiable, non-politically motivated, scientific evidence. as of now, none has been presented.
Gore and his "scientists" stand to make a mint if any of their proposed energy initiatives idiotically make it into law or into our energy policies. now THAT is a fact!
2007-04-05 07:48:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by George in Texas 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I say eat the mushroom.
2007-04-05 07:42:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The human race is a virus on the planet earth. We are eating our ecosystem alive. We are not going to do a damn thing till it's to late. Right now, being on the computer, we are wasting electricity on stuff we don't need!
2007-04-05 07:44:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋