Climate Change: Humor Me With A Game of Pretend

[rucky]

READ the whole thing before you hit the Unrec!

http://www.haynesvillemovie.com/879/climate-change-humor-me-with-a-game-of-pretend/

For the moment, let’s assume that global climate change is real. I know, a lot of you have sent me E-mails and links to the contrary. And yes, I’m well aware of Climategate and the E-mails from the scientists that popped up on the Internet and every other news site.

But humor me, play along and pretend for a moment that climate change is a truth (for those who believe that climate change is real, I ask no change your mindset). Now that it’s real (remember, anti-climate change folks, we’re pretending) what does climate change really mean to us? How does it make us feel What does it make us do?

First, how does the idea of global warming — the idea that the globe is getting hotter and that catastrophic effects will occur — make us feel? Primarily, it scares us. No one wants the globe to heat, especially if it means that terrible things would happen — ice caps melting, Pacific islands disappearing, etc.. So where does that lead us?...

If you read the whole thing, any reader - whether they're a denier or not - should reach the same conclusion. It really is a brilliant way to debate climate change with the uninformed, IMO.

[timeforpeace]

1. Absolutely no one denies the climate changes.

[Igel]

2. It would be so easy to mock the OP.

Far too easy to reverse things. Of course, it would be just as true reversed (in certain ways) as it is now.

That's the problem--as long as you speak in generalities it's fairly easy to come to a consensus. It's when you get down to details that things fall apart, when values and definitions become less ambiguously defined and better ordered and bounded.

So 69% favor a public option? Fine. But when 45% can't explain what "the" public option is there's a good chance that a hefty percentage of those favoring it don't know what they're saying. The proper response is to just count those who *can* explain--but then you realize that there are a dozen explanations, and some of those favoring one public option are against another public option. It all gets difficult.

It's best just to stick with the generalities. Even if it *is* precise details that will be implemented.

Few are in favor of dumping more CO2 into the air, just as few want to drive more species to extinction (well, there are a few species I'd like to see take air into their spirae for the last time). It's a question of how to do it, how much to spend doing it, to what extend will it be helpful in the way presented.

Once I had a long-running debate with a political opponent and ally. We were at odds on all things political but were both elected to student government office. It became clear that we wanted the same thing: For all kids to be loved and wanted, for everybody to be well fed, gainfully and happily employed, to be well educated and to receive good medical, dental, and vision care. We didn't like war or pollution or racism or hate crimes or, actually, crime of any kind. We hated oppression and loved justice. Well, apart from a few trivial details on how to define "oppression" and "justice." We wanted all students to be dealt with fairly and to be able to afford to graduate within the normative time to degree, yada-yada.

But we fought like cats and dogs over how to achieve these goals, who was to be held responsible, how much to spend doing it and where the money would come from, and why some of these things existed and even which goals should be met first. Apart from those few things we were generally in perfect agreement. It's not the values--it's the ranking, since not all values can be expressed simultaneously.

And it's only when there are sufficient details that values start needing to be ranked. Sometimes people provide their own details by default; sometimes they don't. But without the details, the discussion is etheric.