3 questions

The Pirate's Cove quotes three questions that should be deployed in a climatesomething debate:
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong? 
What happens if you are wrong? 
What makes you hate the future so much?
Actually, those are questions recommended by a Warmist to discomfit an evil denier, but they seem like pretty good questions in reverse as well.


MikeD said...

What a bunch of morons. Ok I'll play along (though I doubt they will):

1) Actual testable hypotheses with clearly defined data that takes into account ALL records of world wide climate, not just those since the Little Ice Age, and also accounts for variances in solar activity. I will then require those experiments to be replicated AT WILL by anyone, not just the results posted ina computer model saying "SEE!!! IT'S HAPPENING!" That will convince me you are engaging in science rather than religion.

2) If I am wrong, then we will return to global temperatures like those that were in existance during the Medieval Warm Period, and we'll see Northern Europe become a breadbasket of the world again, and the world will keep on spinning. Temperatures have been warmer than they are now, and life has managed to survive.

3) I do NOT hate the future, and as evidence, I present my unwillingness to doom it to a second Dark Age by discarding all the advances we've made since the Industrial Revolution. Also, I will hasten to point out that technologically, fossil-fuel driven, capitalist societies are the only ones who have the wealth and the interest to implement eco-friendly regulations. So if you want a clean planet, you want a rich planet. But unlike you enviro-nitwits, I recognize that.

Grim said...

1) A sudden refusal by the rich and famous advocates of this theory, and/or political advocates living on other people's money, to fly, drive large cars, live in big houses, or in any way contribute to "greenhouse" gas production. When they start acting like they really believe it, I'll take a more serious look at their contentions.

2) Hell if I know. Problem is, you don't really know what happens if I'm wrong either.

3) I love the future. I just want it to look more like the good parts of the past. Give me 'green living' in a way that preserves excellent beer and locally grown food, while losing the periodic starvation and epidemics, and we can talk. Give me a motorcycle that is 'clean' by your standards without losing power or otherwise becoming unworkable or unaffordable, and we can talk. Just don't ask me to sacrifice known and actual goods for highly theoretical possible goods.

Joseph W. said...

#1 - Better evidence than you've got, and without signs of shenanigans in letting that evidence be checked. You'd get a more respectful hearing if it didn't always come from committed Greens - a movement that embraces every anti-industrial cause that comes along. (It just happens that this one has stuck in the public mind the way some of the others haven't, and is bigger than they were.)

#2 - The earth gets warmer, as it has before. Human beings adjust to it, as they have before. I hope they've got the wealth and technology to make those adjustments smoothly.

#3 - I don't. But I know the future is dynamic, as the past was. The flat shaft of the hockey stick is a deception, but it fits the deepest pattern in Green thinking.

Green thinking is fundamentally static - picturing "nature" in an Edenic, static equilibrium that humans, as a force outside of nature, upset. In reality, nothing was static before humans came to be - not the climate, nor the number of species nor the mix of species. And Man and his works are as much a part of Nature as polar bears and termite mounds.

(If ideologies were purely logical instead of largely tribal, you'd think the strictest creationists would be the strictest Greens - young-earth creationism, is compatible with the idea that the number of species is fixed, and that the Creator intended them all to survive to the end of the world...)

bthun said...

I'm good with all three of the #1s listed above.

I'm partial to Joseph's #2 and would only add that I'd pack up W.B. and move to Canada.

#3 If I did, which I don't, age would be as good an excuse and any.