We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Although I suspect that "climate change" is of no significance, and represents just little blips on an ever-changing graph, I have a question for everyone who discusses the subject: Why does it matter whether warming or cooling is made-made or not?
Isn't there an assumption in that question that if, say, periods of warming correlate with solar radiation, that is somehow better or different or less scary - like organic spinach or something?
Why should it matter? Warmth is warmth.
Besides everybody going out to plant a palm tree to make them feel better, I propose an international effort to send fleets of fire-engine rocket ships to the sun to cool it off a tad. Not so much as to put the fire out, though. This would be a good project for the UN.
Well, gotta run. Need to complete the documents for my new carbon-offset company so I can cash in before the fad goes the way of the hula-hoop.
I think the way is worded ("Why does it matter whether warming or cooling is made-made or not?") implies that the underlying assumptions are correct, and I think that needs some work. I think the question needs to be decomposed. (Sorry if that opens a path for some rotten puns.)
Is global warming happening or not? Seems unclear at the moment but let's say it is.
Is that bad or not? Let's assume that it is bad, otherwise we lose interest in the question.
Is increasing Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere causing it (the global Warming)? Well, no, it looks rather like there is no evidence that there is. But that too makes us lose interest in the question, so let's say for the sake of keeping the argument alive that it is.
Is the increase in Carbon Dioxide due to the actions of humans, or due to some other force? (This gets us back close to the original question, you see?) If it is not due to humans then there is probably little that humans an do about it (we are talking huge scales here) so again we lose interest in the question. So let us say that the we humans are largely responsible for the increase. that gets us right up against why it is important.
If humans are the cause of it then we can sanctimoniously say "Never mind that we have gotten fat and rich by cutting down forests and plowing up prairies and burning coal and oil at prodigious rates. What is now important is that you, yes you, the funny-looking brown people there, you must not try to follow us to the land of milk and honey because to do so puts our lifestyle in great peril and we really don't want that to happen. So you must use your solar panels (if the sun is out) to wither light your hospital OR run your refrigerator. See you get choices! You must stay close to nature the way God intended and burn dung to cook your food.
If it turns out that man-made carbon dioxide is not a useful weapon in the War on Brown People, we would have to find something that is, don't you see?
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
I swear the gremlins are out to get me.
At one point I said "So you must use your solar panels (if the sun is out) to wither light your hospital OR run your refrigerator."
I may not be obvious that that said "So you must use your solar panels (if the sun is out) to Either light your hospital OR run your refrigerator." when I started to fight with thecaptcha. (Which says LP v H -- let's see if it takes it. I'm guessing noit because of the spaces.
Don't know what was wrong with that attempt
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.