The solutions put forth to fight global warming are those that reduce pollution.
Whether this actually reduces global warming or not, I think it's beneficial to reduce pollution, especially those that contribute to health issues, such as power plant emissions and tailpipe emissions. There is a definite benefit to reducing pollution regardless of its effect on our health.
There is a difference to reducing pollution which we have done over the last 50 years or so in fact our air and water is the cleanest it has been in 50 years, but we should be cautious about a group who wants to sell us paper and put a majority of the workers out of there jobs in the name of something they can not even prove. The weather man gives the weather in 10 day forecast and yet that forecast is changed every day.
Part of what is built into modern science is that nothing can be proven. That's the beauty of it because it allows us to rapidly change our scientific views when evidence merges that contradicts the current theory. So, basically, what you are saying is that we can never spend any money on scientific consensus because they don't prove anything. This is a dangerous position.
Second, there is nothing in our current attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions that will put "a majority of the workers of of [sic]there jobs." Might it hurt economically? Yes, but probably only in the short-term as capitalism does a great job of finding where the profit will come from.
This is a dangerous position.
There is the rhetoric that we see from those who look down upon others for this views. Can you not defend the science without talking down to people and using scare tactics? That is why it is increasingly being looked upon as a cult. The need to belittle the person you're debating (or in the case of zealots preaching to) is quite off putting and demeans your argument.
We can't prove anything in science. This guy said that if we can't prove something, we shouldn't base policy around it if it might hurt some people. The logical conclusion from that is that we can't ever use science to determine policy, if doing so hurts anyone. Sorry that I find that to be a dangerous position because it means we have to completely disregard science when making decisions, but I have a hard time seeing why that is, at all, belittling to him.
The interesting part is that the guy I was responding to claimed that the people who support doing something about global warming want to put the majority of workers out of a job. That's a scare tactic, why didn't you address his scare tactic?
Doing something about "global warming" will cost jobs.
Look forward to even more manufacturing jobs leaving (of which there are few left) when they begin to tax carbon. These manufacturing companies will move to a country that has far fewer environmental regulations. Shifting the production of both goods and pollution to other countries helps us how?
So will we all end up living in Eden while homeless to feel better about ourselves that we did our part?
The jobs in the industries that cause global warming aren't efficient.
More jobs in the petrochemical sector, the automotive sector, etc. are not worth the social costs versus the social benefits.
Stopping global warming would mean investments into a more efficient set of transportation, distribution and production systems.
Just a few days ago, I was reading in WIRED about how the sheer amount of time that the cars that we own sit, unused, in parking lots and garages and driveways, is an economic inefficiency that might be incalculable. Imagine how many parks, schools, and affordable housing could be on land that we've paved over.
Let's assume you got rid of most of the cars, hey public transportation for everyone, now that's works fine in a big city, but in rural area, it doesn't. When I lived in Seattle I didn't own a car for many years, buses came by ever 5 minuets during the day 1 hour at night, and you walked no further then 3 blocks to catch a bus. Now I live in a rural area, it wouldn't pay, nor would it be efficient to run a bus every HOUR within three block of my home, then add to the problem of people who live out of town how often would you run a bus by their home, twice a day maybe. Think about this there are counties in my state we have two counties with a population of less then 1 person per sq mile, tell me how are you going to service them?
" not worth the social costs versus the social benefits."
Really, transporting food to every corner of our county isn't worth the cost, just how to you think food gets to the city? How is it planted, grown, stored moved, that's with petrochemical that's how. Before you jump up and down scream "GO ORGANIC" remember that 1. you cut yields up to 50% which means you would need even more crop land. 2. Organic is more labor intensive, that is you need a lot more people especially if you plan on getting rid of petrochemicals.
Should be be more energy efficient, sure and we should have a rational national plan to become so, but have you notice that the "solutions for AGW" don't solve the problem they just move money around?
Incorrect, science can, and does, prove things, primarily relationships between cause and effect. That is the purpose of science, to determine causal relationships.
Can I ask you what you think science as proven?
We can observe cause and effect and get to a point where we can say, with a high level of confidence, that the next time the cause is applied, we will see the same effect. This is the case with gravity. But science leaves wide open the possibility that the next time the cause is applied, we might see the completely opposite effect, causing us to rethink the theory.
Will not put people out of work I am assuming you do not live in Southern Ohio, WV. PA. WY that sir is the coal industry and they are already loosing jobs by the 100s. So no job loss is BS from the left.
I find it somewhat ridiculous the fighting that's going on about pollution. Like you say, even if it doesn't stop global warming it's a goal worth pursuing in itself. If anyone can find a doctor that says inhaling coal smoke has no negative effects on health (and doesn't immediately lose their medical license) then there could be a valid discussion, but there is to my knowledge absolutely no disagreement.
The "solutions" put forth to deal with global warming invariably enrich select groups at the expense of others without actually providing a meaningful benefit. At best, these are zero-sum plays to redistribute wealth (and not necessarily from rich to poor). At worst, they are actively destructive and will result in a degradation of people's standard of living excepting the exceptional few who are pushing this robbery.