Action on Global Warming is Suicide

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Objection:

The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate Global Warming will risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people.

Answer:

Is this supposed to mean that the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong?  You can not come to a rational decision about the reality of a danger by only considering how hard it might be to avoid. First things first, understand that the problem is real and present. Once you acknowledge the necessity of addressing the problem, taking action suddenly become less daunting. There is no point in discussing the best solutions or the cost of those solutions with someone who does not yet acknowledge the problem.

But even if mitigating Global Warming would be harmful, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above may await us if we try to reduce fossil fuel usage.

Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative fuels, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation are forgetting something rather important. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, be it now or a bit later. Many bright minds inside the industry think we are already at Peak Oil. So even if it turned out that climate mitigation actions were unnecessary, we would nevertheless be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later.

Seems like a win-win situation to me.


This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


“Action on Global Warming is Suicide” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.

330 thoughts on “Action on Global Warming is Suicide

  1. “So, if one gains assets as a product, it’s not profit?”

    What on earth are you wibbling on about?

    A house isn’t a profit.

    Like

  2. wow,
    1] if you had no house and now you do, that demonstrates your assets have increased, profit.

    2] I mean, isn’t following the science the default position?
    IS that stated better?

    Like

  3. Great James, glad you agree.

    So I guess you would also agree that it is long past time that we attempted to rapidly and deliberately de-carbonize the economy, offering all the investment perks, subsidies, government resources, research dollars and artificial price stabilizations to only 100% renewable energy systems henceforth. In conjunction with this we should of course install a annually rising taxation at the source of all carbon emissions (something these polluters have had over thirty years to prepare for) and redistribute this equally to all eligible citizens of each country in question. Right? You can call this what you like but you and I at least agree we can ALL “profit” from such measures….

    As for fleas, Coby may have removed the offending post before I had a chance to see it, but did Crackar really drop by this week?

    Like

  4. “1] if you had no house and now you do, that demonstrates your assets have increased, profit.”

    No, I have not had profit.

    I have had a wage with which I bought a house.

    Or I had effort, with which I built a house.

    I have a house.

    Not profit.

    Retard.

    Like

  5. Matt,

    ok, flea retracted.

    I’d rather see hard limits, rationing of carbon vs increasing taxes.
    Less wiggle room and possibly more “incentive” to develop.
    If it’s “destructive”, why would we want it at a higher price?

    Tragedy of the global commons represents a challenge.

    Like

  6. Wow,

    You seem to want to define profit by who is earning it.

    If you have a wage as an employee, there is no profit.
    But if you had a service business doing the same thing, it is profit.
    How does this make sense?

    Like

  7. You don’t even know what profit means, kid, you’re that detached from reality.

    “If you have a wage as an employee, there is no profit.”

    If you want to put it that way.

    “But if you had a service business doing the same thing, it is profit.”

    Well, if they need an entry in the dictionary as an example of a non-sequitor, that would be a top contender.

    No, if you have a service business doing the same thing, you have a service business doing the same thing.

    It doesn’t need profit to do it. Profit is what you get over and above what you need to spend to do $WHATEVER.

    Like

  8. [Profit is what you get over and above what you need to spend to do $WHATEVER.]

    So, you are now claiming that there is no such thing as profit, because it’s possible to spend it all?

    Do I have this correct?

    Like

  9. LOL.

    I’ve made the suggestion about 3 times now, and he’s never denied it:

    It’s Paul. Case closed.

    He will avoid taking falsifiable positions (he doesn’t read) and throw meaningless curve balls that land in the fence, hoping we’ll swing. He doesn’t have a heater (that requires research). This is a junk ball pitcher.

    In a perverse way I admire James/Paul. The willingness to debate a point despite being divested of any factual backing must be the flip side of some virtue. (I just haven’t figured out what that virtue is yet.)

    Like

  10. Heck, he’s not just devoid of any factual backing, he’s lacking any definition in any terms.

    To him, if you get paid, that’s “profit”. Funnily enough, investors don’t accept “we gave you a wage” as “profit”. They want a cut, not a wage.

    A proper humpty-dumpty.

    Like

  11. “So, you are now claiming that there is no such thing as profit”

    Nope.

    Maybe you are. Who can tell.

    Profit is what you have left after expenses. Maybe your daddy works in Hollywood, though. YOU certainly don’t have a job.

    Like

  12. Wow,

    you are a Utopian.
    I hope it works out well for you.

    Skip,
    I don’t mind being proved wrong. Why are you always looking for a battle? Can we not agree?
    You can’t believe this wow profit issue, can you?

    (ok, who is paul? is that another “inside slam” for you folks?)

    Like

  13. You don’t even know what that means either.

    revenue. Do you know what it is?
    expenses. Got a clue about it?
    profit. Know what that is?

    Answer to all three for you: No.

    Like

  14. I don’t mind being proved wrong.

    Wrong. You’re piss-soaked scared of it. This is why you’re trying to so ridiculously have it both ways. Throw a source out that *might* make a point, but refuse to actually take a stance on that source. It’s purely idiotic and yes if that strikes you as combative it’s a fight you will get. It’s jerk behavior and you’re getting what you deserve.

    Can we not agree?

    With what, James? With *what*? You’re entire motif is to try to (sort of) get your digs in but refuse to clearly articulate a position so as to maintain (what is in your mind) plausible deniability. You, and your dumb game, are exposed. You’ll eventually tire of it.

    As for you and wow, I cannot even understand what you say half the time and therefore have no opinion.

    You’re so terrified of it you refuse to take a position. You just laucncyh

    Like

  15. I cannot speak to how grateful Coby is for the compliment, although I can assure you yours was not the participation he envisioned. The discussion will be richer for your absence.

    Like

  16. A reminder of every evasion and idiocy in which you’ve engaged.

    So let’s start with 1 for me. Joe Romm on parity for alternative energy. I admit (do you hear this skip?) I admit I don’t know if it’s true. And claimed that because of the prevailing subsidy issues on both fossil and non-fossil fuels.

    And 1 for wow on profit. Clearly he is confused. And skip says volumes by saying nothing.

    Like

  17. James:

    And claimed that because of the prevailing subsidy issues on both fossil and non-fossil fuels.

    Before we go any further I want to see if you can articulate yourself in a complete sentence. No hints!!

    Like

  18. Hey, that’s not fair.

    Just see if he can complete a sentence first.

    After he/she’s learned how to do that, THEN we can ease them into “articulate”.

    Like

  19. No hints!!

    Of course, *that* was an incomplete sentence.

    Btw: There *might* be a website called “JamesMadisoniswrongabouteverything.com”. Isn’t that good news? Of course, I am not taking a position as to whether this website is correct–or even if it exists. But I still insist that James do his “homework” and determine that for himself.

    Like

  20. rojvjastqepjbqetkflza[qeotjaj.

    algjlajlgapeinvzow.fjvn?

    mb/askfh;nptiyib!

    (I decided to bring the discourse to your level, JM.)

    Like

  21. “I can do that with a single letter.”

    You didn’t, though. Therefore, as a skeptic, I believe only evidence. and the evidence is that you can’t.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s