[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication? (Was Re: Global Temperatures to Decrease)

[Samantha Atkins]

On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com 
> > wrote:
>> Alex failed to rebut anything I said, which is why I took his
>> comments the way I did (evidently in error). He *asserted* that
>> anthropogenic global climate change was non-existent, without making
>> any rebuttal of Lee's citation from a climate scientist. He expressed
>> vehement *disagreement*--
>
> I think there are four entirely different issues involved in Global
> Warming from a H+ point of view:
> i) does it exist in the first place?

And if so, to what degree?

>
> ii) assuming that i) is true, is it anthropogenic?

If so, how much of it?

>
> iii) assuming that i) is true, and irrespective of whether ii) is true
> or not, is it an entirely negative development?

Depends on the amount of warming we are talking about.

>
> iv) assuming that i and iii) is true, and irrespective of wheher ii)
> is true or not, should be avoided at any price, or (in other terms)
> what price would be acceptable to avoid or limit it?

To put it another way, how much warming is acceptable or how much  
price for how much decrease in dangerous levels of warming.   Where is  
the cost - benefit analysis?

> E.g., would it be
> fine to sacrifice more human lives, tech progress, life quality than
> would be spared by accepting its assumed adverse consequences, were it
> necessary to reduce it?

I think we can find ways to reduce it, if needed, without seriously  
impacting any of those things.  I am suspicious of GW advocates in  
part because their supposed cures are unnecessarily harsh and  
moralistic and sold based on absolutist premises.

>
>
> Point ii) and iv) are important, because interestingly it appears from
> polls that many people who would be ready to accept important
> sacrifices to limit an anthropogenic global warming would not be
> willing to accept a fraction of them to embark in geo-engineering
> projects aimed at reducing a "natural", albeit equally adverse, global
> warming.
>

That's odd.  If the warming is truly sufficiently harmful it should  
motivate means to combat it regardless of source.  Unless much of the  
energy of the movement is really more about anti-science and progress  
or anti-development like much of environmentalism unfortunately  
became.   I don't know why the message that we are terrible sinners  
and destroyers of Nature and Nature's Way is so easy to sell.

> This clarifies well enough how poisoned by neoluddite mentality the  
> subject is.
>

Yep, it seems so.

- samantha