Good Global Warming Sunday Morning

This is probably the smartest take on the controversy I've seen – pass it on:

[ht: Raffi]


4 thoughts on “Good Global Warming Sunday Morning

  1. jayuff says:

    If global warming causes a 70 degree week in december so i can ride my new motorcycle, it’s a good thing. at least for now.

  2. Dave M says:

    A few observations (admitting i haven’t watched all of his other videos):
    –It keeps going back to an appeal to consensus; which i can appreciate to a point. But even if the two organizations get behind it, does that mean the debate is settled? Does their reputation provide all the evidence needed that they’re right? Can an organization respected worldwide ever be wrong? Take, for instance, the Roman Church deciding it’s a flat earth. No, go with me on this. The Roman Church was the clearinghouse of academic knowledge in the western world throughout the Middle Ages, for around a thousand years. The wisest men in the Western world went to Mother Church with their ideas. They wouldn’t stake their reputation on something that could turn out to be false, right?
    It’s a simplistic analogy, but the point is, big organizations can be wrong, for any number of reasons. The worldwide soft-drink giant, arguably the greatest and most successful endeavor in their field, also put out “New Coke.” On the other side of the aisle, there was “Crystal Pepsi.” And who knows more about soft drink creation than these two organizations?
    –The video ends with an appeal for “change.” The amorphous, undirected, feel-good word of our generation. But what change? How much? Is that the best kind of change? Who decides? These funny-looking lightbulbs that are so energy-efficient? They also contain mercury, and could be incredibly harmful if broken. Is that the best kind of change, or could we find something better?
    People talk about ditching fossil fuels and moving strictly to solar/wind/fuel-cell technology. Cool, but what about the idea that a long-term storage battery for some of these types of energy hasn’t even been created yet, on any workable level? So we’re putting all of our efforts, money, focus, and hope (there’s that other word) on technology that may not pan out any time soon. Is that the best kind of change?
    Honestly, I don’t want to destroy the planet. I’ve got a stake in this. But there’s a difference between moving toward a better solution and just moving toward a different solution. What I’m seeing is a lot of people who are panicking in the face of climate change, and are latching on to ANYTHING that promises to be different and better than the old way–even if it hasn’t been demonstrably better so far.
    Is it too late to plead for sanity? Or should we just roll over and give in to the mob–er, i mean, consensus?
    Submitted with respect.

  3. Dave M says:

    If you will also allow me a bit of levity, this argument also reminds me of this:

  4. Rick says:

    I think the point is to move past the controversy and do something. Almost a do anything as long as it’s “better” than what we’re doing now. The biggest problem might be malaise (don’t care) or inertia (can’t act from caring too much).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s