BlackCat

So far as I am aware, Gray has published little or nothing in any peer-reviewed journal to support his view that warming is a "natural cycle". That's not supression; it's an absence of good research.

BC

BlackCat

A joke article littered with false syllogisms. Then again, one is hardly going to get a liberal perspective from George Will.

BC

Cabrio330

Now there is a substantive retort! Please explain for the rest of us what is false about Will's article. And I find it interesting that you want to stamp this issue as liberal versus conservative. I am sure you really mean correct versus incorrect, respectively, don't you? If everyone's opinion was based strictly on settled science, I don't believe such labels would even enter into the discussion. But of course, this is not the case. So those of us, who demand more proof or convincing and who understand (unlike Mr. "No Downside Whatsoever" Swajames) that there are always unseen costs that need to be understood, are labeled by Mr. BlackCat as conservative - in a pejorative sense, not in the literal sense of acting conservatively in the absence of sufficient evidence. Because there could not possibly any downside! Therefore, I look forward to reading Mr. Swajames' posts on http://www.SoldMyPorscheAndNowWalkTo...ght.com/Forums.

Or would that present too much downside, Mr. Swajames?

BlackCat

I suggest you look up the definition of syllogism in the dictionary and then re-read the second page of the article. George Will is a well-known conservative commentator: those at the conservative end of the political spectrum have, overall, taken a different position on climate change from those at the liberal end.

In any case, there is research and analysis to suggest that the economic impact of doing nothing about the causes of climate change will be significant. For example, the Stern Review into the economics of climate change predicts a 5% reduction in global GDP each year through inaction (and a potential 20% reduction in GDP if assessed on a wider basis). Will's article also makes the mistake of focusing on purely an increase in temperature: while an overall increase in global temperature is a probable effect of grenhouse gases, the effects in terms of climate change are far more complex at a regional level (droughts, flooding, weather extremes and so on).

BC

Cabrio330

I give you credit where due - you at least said that political opposites have taken a "different" position on climate change. Thank you for being gracious. I now feel the need to be gracious, therefore I will grant you that some of what Will wrote strikes me as syllogistic too. [There, I used it in a sentence! I feel smarter already.] And I will admit to a lack of extensive familiarity with the Stern Review because I have not read it. Why? Because it begins with a premise that is not settled science. That, and I had already read critiques suggesting much of his analysis was wrong or inappropriate.

In any event, my frustration is caused less by those who have already concluded that climate change is indeed created and/or solvable by humans (though I think that is still debatable), but more by those, like Mr. Swajames, who so naively take up the cause simply because they cannot fathom any downside whatsoever. And in my estimation, a large number of such advocates are of a similar uninformed mind. Fine with me if you want to conclude that the positives of action outweigh the negatives of inaction. But we should at least acknowledge that there are positives to inaction and negatives to action. And then limit the debate to the balance of each course.

swajames

My only reference to downside in any of my posts, and a point that it seems you managed to miss, was that I did not see any downside in each of us taking reasonable steps to reduce our personal energy consumption and reduce our personal impact on the environment. I maintain that's a perfectly valid and responsible position for each of us to take - irrespective of where we may lie on the political spectrum or what our personal perspective may be on the causes or the existence of climate change. I think it's implicit that most of us recognize that for every action there would be a consequence, and that there are positives and negatives that can be drawn from both sides of the debate, just as they can from questions around action versus inaction. It is also implicit to most reasonable people that there may be some cost associated with taking responsibility for what we do in relation to our impact on the environment. On balance, however, I feel that the cost of doing nothing would be greater than the cost of doing something and that's the position that has underpinned all of my contributions to this thread.