[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication? (Was Re: Global Temperatures to Decrease)
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 20:44:58 UTC 2008
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?
ii) assuming that i) is true, is it anthropogenic?
iii) assuming that i) is true, and irrespective of whether ii) is true
or not, is it an entirely negative development?
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? 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?
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
This clarifies well enough how poisoned by neoluddite mentality the subject is.
More information about the extropy-chat