Who knew such an argument could be falwed in so many ways in so few words.
Should we let an inaccuracy stand in hopes that a lie will ultimately lead to a greater good?
Why would disproving a theory automatically constitute a reversion to old consumption habits?
You're right, and I hope it doesn't. I don't tie the argument to global warming. What I'm concerned with is pollution and long term effects of human economic activity on nature. Not because I think that we actually cause a threat "to the planet", but because I think we cause a threat to
ourselves. Global warming may or may not be part of that.
You know, I do think that the whole "carbon credits" thing sounds awfully like a scam. And yeah, Al Gore is a total hypocrite. He 'invented' the internet- more than anyone he should make the case for having video-conferences instead of private jet flights to and fro. But that doesn't change some fundamental facts that our way of life is gonna run into a wall. I've said it before- Nature, and life, and the universe is a closed system. Nothing is waste. There is no garbage. But the human economy is linear. It begins with nature, and it ends with garbage. Regardless of whether the planet is cooling, or heating, or staying the same, the fact is that we're gonna run out of nature, and we're piling up on garbage. We have to come to terms with that. We can't just read some bloggers opinion and suddenly think the party will go on forever, cuz the hangover's gonna happen. And it's gonna be bad. And maybe you won't see it. But statistically speaking, I've still got about a half century left, my unborn kids may even see the 22nd century. Is there gonna BE a 22nd century, the way things are going?
Another fact is that, whether global warming is real or not, there
are things we are doing that are fucking up the place. Dry areas are getting dryer, wet areas are getting wetter, and there ARE things we are doing to exacerbate them. Take deforestation. Can you deny that humans have cut down a gigantic portion of the world's forests? I mean, those things DO affect places. Even the most ardent anti-global warming-ers can accept that. Forests serve a function in the regulating of the planet. If we're cutting them down, we're changing something that was in a particular state to a different state. What if we just keep going on, forever, with no end, and at the same or increasing rate? Forests don't just MAGICALLY appear. We're gonna run out. If you have a bag of something, and you take out more than you put in, you're gonna run out of the whatever's in the bag. RIGHT? Liberal, conservative, communist, or theologian, you can't deny that. What about fisheries? It is indeed a fact that many major fisheries have collapse or are en route to collapse. What happens? We just move into another fishery. Ever heard of the gigantic cod fisheries in northern Canada? It's been decades and decades, with no sign of replenishment. It's basically dead. And it's not isolated. It's happening everywhere. Same concept. And everyday there's more and more of us, needing more wood, and more fish. I'm not saying that all of a sudden we can just ban fishing and logging. Millions of people depend on it for their livelihood. But there must be SOME effort, whatever limited, to at least come up with some way in which we can meet necessities and not just keep drinkin the booze and figure it'll be someone else's problem someday. That's just not responsible.
But what about global warming? It's pretty much about oil, correct? Well, oil's a pretty good example of this, but even worse. Let's say, there is no global warming. When people say that, what I really hear is "WELL THEN LET THE PARTY CONTINUE! LEVEL THE MOUNTAINS AND BOMBARD THE OCEANS, WE'RE GETTING THAT BLACK GOLD OUT
NOW!" At least trees you can plant, at least fish mate, but how much future can our civilization have if we base our entire existence on a geological
accident; a complete absurdity. Every time you put ONE gallon of oil into the car, that's really one less gallon of oil on earth. There's no stuff you can put in that bag. That bag is perpetually running out. And it WILL run out. And in what kind of mindframe can we keep thinking "ohhh well, you know, in 50 years we'll think about it. In 100 years we'll think about it. There's sooo much of it, it'll be somebody's problem
someday." But really, how much of a bridge will we have by the time we get to it? Even today, I mean, people say "oh well, there's the oil sands, there's the shale, there's all the chemicals we can pump in the earth to get it all out", but do they really know what those things mean? Is it just someone else's problem that they have to raze entire mountains to get those sands going? Does it all just
not matter as long as we don't have to think about it?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
But what you are saying is correct... IF global warming is not real, or rather, not caused by us, but is simply a natural process, well, then fuck that theory. Fine. But I do sincerely hope that the disproving of the theory isn't a referendum on the fact that there is such a thing as the environment, that we do cause some effect in it, and that it's not just there for the reaping
forever with absolutely no consequences. At the same time, I don't think a couple of bloggers and columnists writing on the big scam of global warming disprove anything. Fact is, still the majority of scientists and specialists say that it's there. That there is something happening and we're exacerbating it. Maybe I'm naive. But I think that they know better than the bloggers and columnists that compare their heating bills for this year and last year and suddenly declare that it's all a big hoax. I think it might be a little more complicated than that. But hey, what do I know? And in any case, it doesn't change other fundamental facts: Basically, that we're fucked.
Spray them across a Bic lighter. 
